THE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS – DAY 22, FEB. 22, 2012
SELECTIVE JUSTICE…IMPEACHING A MAN FOR THE “SINS” OF 8?
by Wilfred Avila
Originally posted at Noisy Minority

A pleasant sight to see at the Senate Halls yesterday as they did The Defense Chronicles were Leslie Bocobo and Camille Zamora. They added color to the otherwise drab black and white colors we normally see at the hearings. They seem to have found their niche in producing the The Defense Chronicles. Congratulations to you both and, of course, the many silent people behind the project. It is truly enlightening.

Of course, my friend Bel Belinda Olivares-Cunanan is a daily fixture at the Senate keeping track of the events as they unfold. The same goes for former Senators Kit Tatad and Ernesto Maceda. What is interesting to note is the diminishing number of people who attend the hearings. I am speaking here of the highly visible number of Congressmen who attend the hearings daily. Could the call of Representative Mitos Magsaysay have anything to do it? It will be recalled that she called on her fellow Representatives to do their job in the house and stop being mere spectators at the Senate. Noteworthy is the number of High School and College students who flock daily to the Senate for the hearings. A learning experience indeed.

Meanwhile, the minority bloc in the House of Representatives said Wednesday it is considering filing an ethics complaint against Oriental Mindoro Representative Reynaldo Umali and Quezon City Representative Jorge Banal for possessing bank documents of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Quezon Representative Danilo Suarez, the Minority leader, said they will firm up their decision in a caucus on Monday.

“We are considering that. They practically violated the laws on bank secrecy by mere possession of the document, and as lawmakers, they carry the reputation of the House and it’s not good for the House,” Suarez said in a phone interview. Umali told the Senate impeachment trial that a “small lady” whose existence he admitted he could not prove handed him the bank documents in an envelope. Banal, on the other hand, claimed his copy was slipped under the gate of his home.

The bank records were used by the prosecution team in the ongoing impeachment trial of Corona as evidence that he was not truthful in his declaration of his wealth in the Statement of Assets Liabilities and Net worth. Asked for his reaction, Umali said it is the minority’s prerogative to file a complaint. “That would be unfortunate but that’s within their prerogative. I hope they will not violate my right and damage my integrity or credibility because they may be made liable therefore under Article 19 of the Civil Code among other laws,” Umali said in a text message.

Now, here’s a man who talks of HIS rights and quite nonchalantly forgets the rights of others. Is this selective justice?

Today’s hearings started at 2:30pm with 20 Senator-Judges in attendance.

As soon as it started, Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago spoke on the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. She was particular about the Impeachment Court’s denial of the presentation of the Philippine Airlines’ Vice-President’s testimony.

Santiago underlined that she supported the court’s denial of the testimony of the PAL VP. She reminded everyone that the accused should be informed of the accusations against him, and that the court cannot admit testimony or evidence of any witness regarding an allegation not in the complaint. She drew parallelism between this trial and that of former president Joseph Estrada’s impeachment hearings in 2001. We noticed that Senator-Judge Jinggoy Estrada was all ears as the feisty lady senator was speaking.

Prosecutor-Congressman Representative Giordigi Aggabao took the floor and manifested on the “proffer of proof” and continued to say that PAL VP for sales was the last witness in connection with the FASAP case covered in Article III.

Aggabao announced that they will no longer be presenting evidence and witnesses related to the three remaining charges in Article III: The “excessive entanglement” with former president Gloria Arroyo; the alleged use of public funds for personal use; and the alleged discussion of cases with litigants. He clarified that the prosecution was “waiving, excising” the said portions of the article since there was no longer need for them.

Senator-Judge Joker Arroyo asked whether the private Prosecutor during the previous day’s trial was present and was told that he wasn’t. We failed to note the importance of this. He further asked whether that private prosecutor as, in fact, the FASAP lawyer as well.

Senator-Judges Francis Escudero and Santiago asked whether the prosecution was dropping all other charges and actually closing Article 3 of the complaints. Prosecutor-Aggabao reiterated the prosecution’s position and said that Article 3 was closed with finality. Aggabao informed the court that they were ready to move on to Article VII – that the respondent betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of former President Arroyo even without life and death urgency and even without all conditions set by the Supreme Court being met.

Senator-Judge Enrile also clarified what the prosecution will do with Articles IV, V, and VI, and Representative Niel Tupas reiterated the earlier proposed sequence submitted by the prosecution and agreed to by the court.

Prosuctor Representative Neri Colmenares laid the “road map” for Article VII. Lead Prosecutor Serafin Cuevas objected to the manifestation but Presiding-Judge Enrile clarified that the prosecution was only laying a summary of what they will be presenting in Article VII.

Prosecutor Representive Raul Daza handled the chores for the prosecution and called their first witness, Department of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima who arrived at the Senate grounds with a phalanx of security guards.

De Lima was asked about her duties as DOJ chief and her specific functions in implementing hold departure orders and watchlist orders. The DOJ chief explained the circumstances surrounding the watch list orders she issued against the former president, as well as the denial for the lifting of the Hold Departure Orders.

She further testified on the incidents surrounding the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court against the hold departure orders issued by the DOJ. She testifieds that the Supreme Court issued the Temporary Restraining order on November 15, 2011, which restrained her and the Commissioner of Immigration from enforcing Circular No. 41 and the watchlist orders. The TRO had three condtions: posting of P2 million bond, appointment of legal representative common to both the former President and the First Gentleman and reporting to the various consulates/embassies in her stated destinations.

She continued to enumerate to the court that they received the TRO on November 16, but the SC, through its spokesperson Justice Midas Marquez, (whom she called Mr. Marquez) said in a November 15 press conference that the TRO was immediately executory. She also expounded on the TRO voting.

Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas stated that De Lima’s testimony is beyond the purpose and scope of the impeachment complaint. However, Enrile clarified the DOJ chief was called to narrate the events surrounding the watchlist order, TRO, and that the Senator-Judges couldn discern what is knowledge and hearsay.

Presiding Judge Juan Ponce Enrile then asked her a few questions. He zeroed in on whether CJ Corona acted on his own in any instance related to the case? De Lima uncomfortable replied that there was none but added that in a dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno “that there were matters woth looking into”.

Cuevas again tried to object and manifested that the matters being dealt with were confidential and violated etiquette. Enrile overruled his objection and demanded that De Lima read the pertinent entries in Justice Sereno’s dissenting opinion.

This took a long 10 minutes. Paper upon paper was presented to her. De Lima read the part of Sereno’s dissent where the SC justice recounted Corona’s supposedly telling SC Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco not to promulgate the Sereno dissent. She continued to read from Sereno’s account that the Chief Justice sent handwritten corrections to the Clerk of Court on en banc stipulating that version be released.

She proceeded to testify on the events surrounding the attempted departure of the Arroyo couple on November 15. She clarified that they did not follow the TRO because the department of Justice they did not receive an official copy as of that time.

Continuing, she explained the DOJ’s position, and reiterated that the TRO was improper. She opined that a TRO is suppose to prevent issues from being moot. The main issue, she clearly stated was if they should allow the former president to leave the country despite pending cases?

Senator-Judge Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. asked Secretary De Lima if anyone asked her for the issuance of the watch list (implying Malacanang and the president). She replied that she did it on her own volition. Revilla continued to ask about Circular 41 and the DOJ’s receipt of the TRO. The DOJ secratary replied that they never received the TRO since she was in Malacanang awaiting the results of the SC’s decision! So. why wait in Malacanang? Was the SC suppose to deliver it there? Reminded gently by Revilla that she once served with former president GMA and asked whether she liked it and she replied that she indeed had and was grateful for the opportunity to serve as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights!

Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano wanted clarification on a few things from the prosecution. He asked as to when is the moment that a SC decision is simply erroneous and when is it an impeachable offense? Daza answered for the prosecution. I realy have difficulty with Cayetano. He goes about in a round about way of asking his questions and people have to reformulate his questions to a more concise fashion to understand them.

Lead Counsel Serafin Cuevas took his turn at the podium. He pointed out that SC decisions could not be reversed. De Lima, reiterated that they were questioning the propriety of the TRO because it went against the “essence of what a TRO is.”

She was also asked whether she felt that the departments under the Executive felt they were higher than the Supreme Court and she enunciated clearly that the Executive and the Judiciary were equal and that Departments, being under the Executive, could be seen as co-equal to the Judiciary.

Other questions were asked on the “conspiracy” of the justices and Corona’s control over the court. This was objected to Prosecution Daza but Cuevas reformulated the question. He asked whether eight justices voting one way constituted a conspiracy and she replied to the negative. She, however, clarified her answer that there were attenuating circumstances such as the Serena and Carpio dissents.

Cuevas then requested to continue cross examination on the following day due to the lateness of the hour. This was granted. Majority Leader Sotto stated that several Senator-Judges were also lined up to question the DOJ Secretary.

What did we gather in today’s hearing. Simply stated we have selectibe justice in this country where the so-called “sins of 8″ can be the cause of the impeachment of one man!

In toto, the DOJ Secretary’s testimony left a lot of people wondering why she focused on the dissenting votes of Justices’ Sereno and Carpio and not concentrate more on the premise of the en banc decision itself. How did she get copies of the dissenting opinions of Serena and Carpio to defend her thesis and not the Supreme Court’s decision itself as a body? Just asking.

Photo source: Philippine Senate

via makabayan.net

Your Honor, after tackling Article 2 and Article 3, AND BEFORE WE EMBARK ON ARTICLE VII, WITH THE HOPE OF FACILITATING THE ORDERLY PRESENTATION AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF ARTICLE VII, YOUR HONOR MAY WE BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A BRIEF MANIFESTATION TO ALLOW US TO MAKE A BRIEF SKETCH ON THE EVIDENCE WE WILL PRESENT UNDER ARTICLE VII AND HOW WE INTEND TO PROSECUTE THIS?

Ang prosekusyon ay maglalahad ng ebidensya na magpapatunay sa manifest undue interest, bias at partiality ni CJ Corona:

1. Bumoto si CJ Corona pabor sa agad na pag-iisyu ng TRO dahil diumano sa right to life kahit hindi naman nanganganib ang buhay ni Gng. Arroyo.

2. Mula sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema noong November 15, 2011 na tuparin muna ng mga Arroyo ang mga kondisyon bago maging effective ang TRO, binaliktad ni CJ Corona ang desisyong ito at ginawang effective na ang TRO kahit hindi pa natutupad ang mga nakakabit na kondisyon sa TRO. The unilateral change and distortion of the decision of the Court is one of the gravest acts of partiality of CJ Corona to favor his former boss, and appointing power, Gloria Arroyo.

3. Premature at iregular na inisyu kaagad ni CJ Corona noong Nobyembre 15 ang TRO order sa petitioner bago pa nababayaran ang P2 milyong bond at hindi pa naisumite ang hinihinging special power of attorney. Kinabukasan pa lumabas ang certificate of bond. Pinaburan niya pa ang mga Arroyo nang iextend pa ang office hour para makapagpyansa ng 6:00 ng gabi ang mga Arroyo.

4. Ang muli nyang pagpalit ng desisyon ng Korte Suprema noong November 18, 2011 na hindi effective ang TRO dahil hindi naka comply sa pangalawang kundisyon si Ginang Arroyo na magsumite ng Special Power of Attorney sa boto na 7-6, tungo sa kabaliktarang desisyon na ito ay effective habang tinutupad ang kondisyon.

5. Bahagi ng pambabaluktot at upang pagtakpan ito, pinigilan ni CJ Corona noong Nobyembre 19 ang promulgasyon ng dissenting opinion ni Justice Sereno na labag sa itinatadhana ng Saligang Batas.

6. Nagpalabas si Corona ng mga inaccurate at maling pahayag sa publiko sa pamamagitan ni Atty. Midas Marquez para palabasing epektibo agad ang TRO at maaari nang lumabas ng bansa si Arroyo kahit hindi pa natutupad ang mga kundisyon.

Your Honor, these ACTS, among others, we will prove in Article 7. We will show that by his acts, CJ Corona betrayed the public trust and HE cannot, therefore, continue to remain in public office. NA ANG MGA AKSYON NI CJ CORONA BILANG JURADO AT CHIEF JUSTICE NG KORTE SUPREMA AY ISANG CONSCIOUS NA AKSYON PARA PABORAN SI GINANG ARROYO AT BIGYAN SYA NG OPORTUNIDAD NA MAKATAKAS SA MGA KASO LABAN SA KANYA.

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS – DAY 21, FEB. 21, 2012
SADLY THEY ALL FELL SHORT!
by Wilfred Avila

The Articles were many, eight in all. If you fail in one, you get him with the other. That was the genral plan. The way it’s been going, They all fell short of their target!

Dean Amado Valdez really strikes me as a man who wants so bad to be a Supreme Court Justice himself. Since day one of the trial, he has not said a good word for anybody in the Defense. He has even attacked Former Justice Serafin Cuevas in most of his interviews.

He seems to have conveniently forgotten that he stepped down as the Head of the Government GOCC due to some “undisclosed” reasons. This was during the time Of CGMA. He was then a strong supporter of the former president. How can he claim to be impartial when he is so tainted with hate and venom against CGMA and anyone now seemingly connected to her.

If he really thinks that this road he is taking is the easy way for him, he is sadly mistaken for he has already shown his inability to judge anything justly and fairly. Your being a Dean alone at a University is now being questioned!

The hearings today was the shortest ever recorded in its 21 days. The trial today was called to order at 2:13 pm and lasted until 4:50 pm. Eighteen Senator-Judges were present.

Senator-Judge Trillanes led the prayers and I squirmed in my seat. It didn’t sit well with me that a man full of venom can mouth such holy words. True enough, at the end of the trial, he started mouthing his usual negative words against the Chief Justice. His vote is very obvious. Well, he never hid it, did he? This guy may not seem short at all since he was always upfront with his plans but he falls short of moral fiber.

Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago explained why she always took the floor first at every trial. She claimed that it was because of chronic fatigue and a “lazy bone marrow.” She continued to state that the leaked documents were presented by the prosecution to warrant their request for subpoenas.

The Defense panel, through its lead Counsel Serafin Cuevas, appealed for a second day in a row for a re-examination of Rule 17 of the Impeachment Court rules, that covers the power of the Senator-Judges to ask questions of any sort from witness, the prosecution and the panel. He argued further that the rules could lead to a mistrial, bearing in mind that both sides could not challenge or argue with the Senator-Judges’ questions. Enrile sensing the sentiment of the defense said that they will have to discuss the issue in caucus, and assured them that the Chief Justice would be given a fair trial.

Prosecution, through Cong. Rodolfo Farinas countered the defense by stating that the rules were already “perfect.” “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” he added. now, how cliche-ish can we get?

Majority Floor Leader Vicente Sotto III (the person responsible for formulating the Rules) admitted that it was not in the Impeachment Court rules, but is done in practice in all trials. Asking both defense and prosecution to imagine attorneys arguing with trial court judges, he stressed further. Senator-Judge Angara suggested that it might be best to allow counsel to make exceptions instead rather than objections. He also appealed to not think of a “mistrial” this time, to avoid prolonging the “political agony” of the nation. Hmmm, are they afraid of the fallout if a mistrual does indeed happen? Just a question.

Prosecutor Fariñas said that the prosecution panel has decided to adapt PSBank President Pascual Garcia III as their witness, and the documents Garcia presented to be marked as evidence for their side. In particular, he was speaking of the 8 bank accounts the bank official presented the previous day. Cuevas objected and reiterated his earlier statement.

The first witness for the prosecution was called, a representative from the BPI, subbing for BPI Ayala branch manager Leonora Dizon, who recently gave birth. Cuevas objected and said that Dizon should sit as the witness since the matter needs personal knowledge. Prosecution rebutts that the representative will merely verify the documents to be presented. Enrile lets representative, BPI Ayala branch assistant manager Mara Arcilla, testify since what she was to testify on had already been marked as evidence.

Private Prosecutor Lim took the podium but, in a short while, Enrile reprimanded the prosecution to qualify competency of the witness. Lim said that Arcilla was on the stand to present the documents. Cuevas objected again and said that she could not possibly testify on the accounts since she knew nothing of it. Senator-Judge Drilon stood up and argued that the court requested for the documents. The Presiding Judge recalled differently and asked the court stenographer to look for the transcript of the discussion.

Enrile admitted that Drilon did make the request for a BPI representative to bring the bank statements back in February 9 but clarified that Arcilla still couldn’t be made a witness be for the prosecution since a Senator-Judge made the request.

Drilon suggested that Arcilla now produce the documents and that there was no longer any need for her testimony. The documents were turned over to the Clerk of Court.

Prosecutor Lim insisted in making Arcilla their witness and the documents be marked for prosecution as part of their evidence; Enrile reminded them to wait until defense presents her in court. Lim insisted, and Enrile admonished the prosecution in no uncertain terms. “You are fishing for evidence! …The fact that you tried to adapt her as your own is a misrepresentation.”

Like bees in a beehive, both prosecution and Sentaor-Judges trooped to the Witness table to see the documents. The Senator-Judges, led by Drilon, requested for copies of the just-submitted documents. Cuevas quietly asked the court that the documents be securely kept since these were private bank records. Now, how long do you guys think it will take to keep in secret? Just another question.

The Prosecution announced that they were moving on to Article III of the Articles of Impeachment. Yet, they stipulated that they had reservations in moving on from Article II, specifically on the matter of the foreign currency accounts which was still subject to the Supreme Court’s TRO, as well as the 8 bank accounts from the PSBank presented by Garcia the previous day.

Prosecution’s Representative Sherwin Tugna re-opens Article III. this was previously discussed by Prosecutor Representative Kaka Bag-ao on Day 13 of the trial. Tugna then turned over to Private prosecutor Marlon Manuel who then started his direct examination of Philippine Airlines (PAL) Vice President for Sales Enrique Javier.

Lead Counsel for Defense Cuevas objected to the presentation of Javier as a witness questioning its materiality to Article III. Cuevas underlined that the supposed free tickets for the Coronas are not part of the issue on Article III. Enrile emphatically agreed and told the prosecution panel that they were expanding the coverage of the Article but prosecution tried to argue their case. After a lenghty exchange, the seemingly angrier Enrile finally ruled not to allow the expansion of Article III unless the prosecution amends it.

Prosecution persisted to explain, but Enrile slammed them and stated that his ruling stands. He also testily told the prosecution, “I warned you… there is a limit to the patience of this court.”

The hanging threat of sending back to the House of Representatives the entire case must have struck a bell for the prosecution finally submitted. Enrile said that if the Prosecution wanted to amend the Complaints, they may and bring it back to the House.

Javier is finally discharged as witness and the prosecution was asked to present their next witness. Lead Prosecutor Tupas said that they took exception to the earlier ruling on Article III made by the Presiding Judge. He explained that they were not expanding it. Enrile cut him short by stating that if the prosecution insisted on their position, he would change the ruling.

Proffer of excluded evidence by enumerated by private prosecutor Manuel reciting evidence they could have presented if the testimony by PAL VP was accepted. Cuevas interrupted and said taht it was not proper since the witness was not there to verify it. Enrile ruled to allow prosecution to continue.

Manuel continued to recite the evidence subpoenaed, which included certification on the PAL platinum card issued to the Chief Justice and his and family’s travel records. Cuevas maintained his objection, but Enrile allowed the mainfestation to remain in the record. he furhter underlined that the evidence enumerated is “nothing” because it assumed something that was not established.

Enrile then berated the prosecution that even if he tried to be liberal with the proceedings and help them, there is a “limit” to what he, as presiding officer, can do. “If your articles of impeachment are defective, that’s your responsibility.” This man is never short of his law!

Presiding Judge Enrile then ordered prosecution to present next witness. Lead prosecution Counsel Niel Tupaz admitted that they had no other witnesses for the day since the prosecution wtiness was denied to testify! They pleaded for a continuance tomorrow. It would seem that this was the longest day for the prosecution panel and still they were found short of legalese and had the bad luck to meet up with a short-tempered Presiding Judge!

It is now obvious that this whole complaint was concocted by the prosecution too fast without the benefit of real background investigation. Two of them have already said this in different venues, Prosecutor Congressman Farinas at the trial and Prosecutor Umali at a Press Conference at Annabelles! Both admitted to the lack of quality to the complaint!

Only three people, as far as I am concerned, have so far been able to hit the mark in their desire to keep the trial on fair and just grounds, Senator-Judges, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Bongbong Marcos and the Presiding Judge Juan ponce Enrile. Senator-Judge Kiko Pimentel is still trying to catch up.

The others who are busy asking their clarificatory questions and helping the Prosecution to fish for more evidences are sadly lacking in finesse and probity themselves. They don’t even bother to pretend any longer!

Sadly, they all fell short!

Photo via Philippine Senate

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS – DAY 20, FEB. 20, 2012
SILENCE IN THE COURT, THE MONKEYS WILL TALK!
by Wilfred Avila
Originally posted in the Noisy Minority Facebook Page

In the morning, the Senator-Judges met in a caucus to discuss whether to accept as evidence the bank records of the Chief Justice, which were subpoenaed through a document which was allegedly fake. There was no further news on this though it was awaited the whole day with bated breaths.

With sirens and blinkers blaring, a House of Representative bus arrived carrying a load of Congressmen to boost the morale of the Prosecution panel and Congressman Banal who was suppose to take the stand. He never did!

A Sister Mary John, OSB (the same one who protected Jun Lozada during the ZTE Deal hearings) did an interview on television (Solar) declaring the Chief Justice as guilty of all charges. Without batting an eyelash, she proclaimed that having the accounts themselves should have been enough to judge him guilty. I cringe at the thought of this holier-than-thous casting out judgments as if they were on the top of the Saint’s List. She even refuted the statements of other Archibishops asking for a just and fair hearing. The hell with the truth, let’s throw Chief Justice Corona to the lowest depths of hell. That is what would happen had she been one of the judges. Talk about the Christian spirit she espoused when she accepted her vows!

Interesting enough, when I reported on food being served to the Press, suddenly there is scarcity of it. I should have kept my mouth shut. Hehehehehe.

Now for the hearings: As the session was called to order, there were 21 Senator-Judges present.

The Prosecution called for redirect PSBank President Pascual Garcia III and Katipunan branch manager Annabelle Tiongson. Tiongson was first to whom Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile directed a whole series of clarificatory questions. He asked about the steel cabinet containing bank records, the 2 officers in charge of it. She explained the method as to how the documents can be accessed.

She informed the Presiding Judge that she had consulted Garcia on the day Rep. Jorge Banal visited the PSBank Katipunan branch, on January 31, 2012. She recounted that Banal came to the branch on that date and asked for help from her about the document. She said she was “shocked” to see the photocopy of a specimen card that appeared to be a PSBank document. She then asked if the document is in their bank, and then proceeded to report the incident to her superiors. She related that the documents were then transfered to the PSBank main office in Makati on February 1.

JPE also asked about the PSBank audit, and who could have had access to the accounts at that time.

Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago takes the podium to ask questions. She assured the witness by saying, “Please do not be nervous. I am very practiced with witnesses who come to court for the first time.” Senator-Judge Santiago underlined that bank secrecy laws prohibit people from even asking about any foreign currency deposit account. In an aside, she also said, a “lawmaker is already a lawbreaker,” referring to a certain Congressman.

Santiago then stated that the law raises disputable presumption that the Congressman was the thief of that signature card. She also stated the politicians don’t just accept pieces of paper without identifying who is giving it. “The law says ‘pag hindi mo maipaliwanag iyan, ibig sabihin ikaw ang nagnakaw niyan.”

For the second time since the impeachment trial began on Jan. 16, Senator Lito Lapid approached the podium to question a witness about the supposed bank documents of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Lapid asked PSBank Katipunan branch manager Anabelle Tiongson if there were cameras installed inside their bank’s vault.

“Ms. Witness, may camera ba sa loob ng vault?” he asked. Tiongson answered that there was no camera inside the vault but there was a camera installed “outside.” Jokingly, he commented how “haggard” and tired she was.

“Pagod ka na ba? Parang haggard na haggard ka na? Nung [una kang tumestigo] tawa ka nang tawa,” the senator from Pampanga said. Tiongson replied that she was suffering from a sore throat.

Proceeding with this questioning, Lapid asked whether the documents shown by Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali and Quezon City Rep. Jorge “Bolet” Banal were indeed fake. Tiongson noted that the documents were “different,” reiterating that she did not provide the prosecution with the documents. “It is different [from our documents]. I did not give him [the documents] your honor,” came her reply.

PSBank President Garcia was then called to the witness stand. Enrile continued to ask the
questions. Garcia testified on the events concerning the transfer of the Corona documents from the Katipunan branch to head office, as well as the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLAC) joint audit undertaken. He said some of the accounts targeted by the AMLAC was the Chief Justice’s. The PSBank head also said that they classify accounts held by “Politically Exposed Persons, (PEP)” such as the Chief Justice.

Enrile immediately ordered the PSBank to produce the Chief Justice’s the exact signature card from 2010, which was submitted to the BSP-AMLAC audit team for comparison to leaked document. PSBank counsel Atty. Regis Puno stated that they already brought Corona’s signature card with them, but that it may be different from the one submitted to the AMLAC. Enrile then ordered Garcia to have an inventory of records of the Corona bank accounts submitted and shown to the BSP-AMLC audit team. He reiterated an earlier order that the bank should block out details of foreign accounts, if any.

Majority Floor leader Vicente Sotto (who is doing a yeoman’s job so far) informed the court that the bank has submitted documents that the court has requested, including the logbook that records people’s access to the bank records.

Senator-Judge Joker Arroyo discussed about the past proposals to amend the Anti-Money Laundering Law, and what he bewailed are the 3 probes versus the Chief Justice. He warned that no Senator-Judge is free from this kind of vindictive action should they vote in the negative or against the Chief Justice.

Senator-Judge Franklin Drilon takes the podium He asks about the two other peso accounts under the Chief Justice’s name, which Garcia mentioned in Day 19. Garcia testified to the court of two accounts, one peso time deposit and one peso checking account. He adds that there were 6 accounts that were jointly under the names of spouses Renato and Cristina Corona. He then presented the original signature card of the Chief Justice. Badgered by the Senator-Judge, Garcia reiterated about the dubious Annex A contents describing the “significant differences” of the photocopied document from the original. He finished by stating that there were a total of 42 points of differences between the two.

Senator-Judge Ferdinand Marcos Jr stood up to ask questions of Garcia, specifically about the access of audit personnel from BSP, AMLC.

Senator-Judge Teofisto Guingona III suggested that the original of Annex A could have been photo-copied and photo-copied again so that there were changes. Garcia stayed with his original statement that Annex A was a fake and while they may have been “similar” they still were far too different. Senator-Judges Sergio Osmena, Loren Legarda and Francis Pangilinan also took turns at the podium to ask more clarificatory questions.

Lead Defense Counsel Serafin Cuevas bewailed a newspaper article saying that the defense “has established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” He added that there should be a court order to allow the AMLC to conduct an investigation. Garcia concurs. The defense counsel also said that Garcia would not actually know whether the entries on the documents in the audit are accurate or not since he was not privy to them. Garcia repled in the affirmative.

Senator-Judge Guingona told the bank official that AMLC does not actually conduct regular audits. He suggested that Garcia might be confused, saying there are AMLC representatives during regular BSP checks. Guingona further adds that he called the AMLC and the council said that they “categorically denied” they conducted an audit.

Senator-Judge Arroyo again reiterated that he was afraid that the law is being used for political vendetta and that it may just happen to all of them.

Senator-Judge Marcos stood once more to ask further clarificatory questions on the AMLC-BSP Audit. He also showed differences in the entries of the original as against the Annex A submitted by the prosecution.

Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson suggested a handwriting analysis be undertaken to compare the Chief Justice’s signature to those in the PSBank documents. Enrile retorted that the prosecution should do it. Lacson said that he suggested it to end the speculations over the signatures. “I’m not partial, I just want to get to the bottom of the
issue.” Presiding-Judge Enrile ordered that the Senator-Judges discuss it in caucus.

The Prosecution asked to adopt Garcia as their witness as far as the additional bank accounts are concerned. Defense was fast on their feet and objected that since the witness was recalled by the tribunal after he was discharged, the witness was neither the prosecution’s or for the defense’s. The issue is a first in that the Senator-Judges have been asking so many questions and many more evidences without anyone even presenting them that it remains a doubt whether this will hold water in the end.

As of late, the Senator-Judges have been acting more like prosecutors that it has actually brought confusion to the hearings than any sense of lucidity. This issue is to be decided in a caucus since this is another first for the Presiding-Judge.

The hearings today was froth with so many statements and questions from the Senator-Judges that it ceased to be a trial where the Prosecution was suppose to prove the guilt of the Chief Justice and the Defense to refute them. This did not happen!

As we sit back and watch events unfold, we really wonder as to the integrity and fairness of this hearing. The defense is correct in wondering and stating the obvious. The Senator-Judges were acting more and more acting like prosecutors though their often mentioned statement of searching for more clarification. As they go through this, their biases are showing more and more!

Today, all were silent! That is the prosecution and the defense panels. The monkeys talked. Yes, Silence in the court, the monkeys will talk!

Photo via Philippine Senate website

Banks are notorious for secrecy. There is, after all, a need to protect the rights and safety of their depositors and clients. Without banking secrecy laws, individuals and corporations could be at risk for theft and other monetary dangers. In this country, that would translate to family and friends constantly asking for loans that may never get paid, or worse, kidnappers targeting family members for ransom. Also, no one in his right mind would want the public to know just how much money he has.

The recent developments in the impeachment trial against Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona have once again tested the credibility of the banking secrecy laws as it goes head on against a number of subpoenas relating to the trial.

Peso accounts subpoenaed

The peso deposit accounts of Renato Corona have been revealed to be about P31 million for his various PS Bank and BPI accounts. This was known after the peso accounts were subpoenaed by the Senate in relation to the impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is one of the five exemptions when it comes to the banking privacy laws.

The first copies of the alleged accounts were supposed to be given by an unidentified small lady to one of the lead prosecutors of the case. However, the CCTV of the Senate did not record any such lady interacting or handing anything out to the lawyer. While it was presented in Court, the PS Bank manager called them fake. The Prosecution claimed it had no idea that the bank documents were fake, but the damaging information was already revealed to the public.

The Defense team claimed that the money in the accounts was from the sale of the corporation of Corona’s wife and not ill-gotten wealth from the government. The Defense has also reiterated that they will explain everything in due time and present the necessary documents to the public later on to prove their side.

President Aquino himself has been very vocal about the authenticity of the bank documents. He even questioned why Filipinos were reluctant to believe the veracity of such documents when they were highly incriminating. He has issued the challenge that if Corona had nothing to hide, then Corona should be the one to volunteer and reveal his statements and other bank documents.

Dollar accounts revealed

The dollar accounts, however, are now not anymore being subpoenaed since the law does not cover foreign deposit accounts.

At the time the law was crafted, it was meant to entice foreigners to place their foreign deposit accounts in the country. Our lawmakers wanted to make the Philippines competitive to Switzerland when it comes to the strength, credibility and secrecy of the banking system.

However, in true John Grisham fashion, the amounts of Corona’s foreign deposits were also revealed to the public, even without the benefit of a subpoena. Copies of alleged dollar deposits of Corona were slipped into the gates of the home of Quezon City’s 3^rd District Representative Jorge Banal.

According to the Manager of PS Bank Katipunan, Banal personally went to the bank to ask her help in determining the authenticity and accuracy of the photocopied statements. However, she had to turn down his request.

Rock and a hard place

The Bank Manager in question, Annabelle Tiongson, is in a tricky situation indeed. She needs to protect the privacy of their depositors. Also, the bank could get sued for breach of privacy, much like when former President Erap Estrada sued Citibank and won when the bank released his banking information.

Tiongson needs to be very careful about her answers. She also needs to protect her branch, because Banal himself said that someone is helping them. If this is true, then there is obviously someone violating banking privacy laws in PS Bank. How else could these statements, whether authentic or not, leak out to the public and land in the hands of the Prosecution?

When faced under the strict questioning of the Prosecutors and the Senator Judges, Ms. Tiongson was clearly uncomfortable. She probably never thought in her entire career that being a bank manager would land her in the halls of Senate to testify against the Supreme Court Chief Justice!

Need to balance secrecy and transparency

The SALNs of the Supreme Court Justices have been kept under lock and key for many years. In the case of the ongoing impeachment proceedings, it took Senator Franklin Drilon to get the SALNs of the Chief Justice to be presented to the Court by the Supreme court clerk, after failed attempts of the Prosecution to get the documents.

There are privacy laws in place to ensure the security and privacy of individuals. However, there is also a need to balance the need for transparency, especially when there is a need to fight corruption.

Here lies the conundrum. How do you prove that someone has ill-gotten wealth without first seeing the bank statements of the accused? You can only file an impeachment complaint and there will be an impeachment trial if there is substantial basis for the accusation. At the same time, the Prosecution cannot use the subpoenas to gather evidence against Corona, since they are supposed to already have such evidence at the time they filed the impeachment complaint.

Help from the public

This is where the mysterious help from the people comes in. Thanks to private sympathizers to the cause of the Prosecution, these very private bank documents are now surfacing, with blatant disregard for privacy banking laws. The Prosecution claims that this type of help just shows how the public supports the impeachment proceedings.

Does the end justify the means?

However, we should all remember that this is still against the law. Even if we think he’s the bad guy and he’s guilty, no one has the right to open these accounts and make them public, unless the depositor himself asks for it, or if there is an impeachment.

If we go back to the Marcos plunder case, the government lawyers didn’t get any anonymous help from Swiss bankers when it came to Marcos’ accounts. This just further established the strength and credibility of the Swiss banking system, protecting the privacy of alleged crooks, convicts, millionaires and other depositors equally.

This is also the type of “accidental leaking” to the media that has plagued this case from day one. Institutions of secrecy are made for a purpose, and it’s up to the Prosecution to get around them but through legal means.

Even if these revelations about Corona’s accounts have helped the Prosecution, we shouldn’t lose sight of the big picture. These actions are sending the wrong message to the financial community. We may slowly be destabilizing the banking industry by violating privacy laws. At worst, a bank run may ensue if depositors feel their money and privacy aren’t safe.

As such, we should all tread carefully.

Photo from Philippine Senate website. Some rights reserved.

Originally posted at Blog Watch.

This is a press statement from Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines .

A group of women advocates working in grassroots communities blamed Congress for the reported 50 maternal deaths in January in Metro Manila alone.

According to Elizabeth Angsioco, National Chairperson of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP), the Department of Health report is quite alarming and should wake up sleeping representatives in Congress.

“These deaths are caused by inadequate reproductive health services needed in preventing and responding to such complications and therefore, saving mothers’ lives,” lamented Angsioco.

Angsioco stressed that these services are contained in the RH bill that has been continuously delayed for more than 12 years by Philippine Congress.

“It is frustrating that Congress is quick to act on political issues like impeachment but very slow when it comes to legislation that will address ordinary people’s needs, especially those of poor women,” said Angsioco.

Angsioco added, “It is detestable that the House of Representatives (HOR) in particular, has been almost paralyzed because of the ongoing impeachment trial despite the fact that only a handful of them are directly involved in it. The HOR knows very well that its legislative functions should not be neglected.

DSWP head extends blame to President Aquino, who has been too preoccupied with removing the chief Justice who heads a supposedly co-equal branch of government, and in the process seems to have set aside his promises to the Filipino people, especially to those that will redound to their well-being like the RH bill.

“Two years in office is more than enough for him to achieve this as shown by the other issues where he got what he wanted from Congress,” asserted Angsioco. “The President needs to be sternly reminded that many voted for him because of his promise to push for the RH bill passage.”

Moreover, “the deaths of these mothers are on the heads of these government officials. How many more mothers need to die before those who are mandated to save them begin to act?” Angsioco asked.

Urging government officials to end the political intramurals, Angsioco said, “the executive should fulfill its promises and mandate, especially those contained in P-Noy’s Social Contract with the Filipino people.”

Lastly, Angsioco urgently called on Congress to put RH bill into vote. “For once, our political leaders should do something for mothers, especially poor mothers who are dying every day due to pregnancy and childbirth-related complications,” she ended.

“The number one benefit of information technology is that it empowers people to do what they want to do. It lets people be creative. It lets people be productive. It lets people learn things they didn’t think they could learn before, and so in a sense it is allabout potential.” – Steve Ballmer, Chief Executive, Microsoft

(Via Anna Oposa)

Two writers from Blog Watch will be speakers in the fifth and last leg of the British Council’s Digital Technology for Social Change: Creating impact in a networked society series will be in Ateneo de Naga on Monday, February 27.

The speakers are:

Mark Batingue (@markbantigue), Chief Progress Pusher of Progressive Pinoy Perspectives

Ana Santos (@dash_of_sas), Founder and Editorial Director of SexandSensibilities.com, co-founder of Writer’s Block Philippines

Anna Oposa (@annaoposa), Founder  Save Philippine Seas

and myself Noemi Lardizabal-Dado (@momblogger)

How to Join

1.  Aspiring participants should be 18-25 years old who are actively engaged in community development. We highly encourage applications from minority groups.

2.  Fill out the Application Form and answer in 100 words or less the major challenges you’ve encountered in promoting past or present advocacies and why you believe digital media is a tool that will assist you in overcoming this.

3.  Email completed application forms to: changemaker@britishcouncil.org.ph by Wednesday, February 22.

WE’RE STREAMING LIVE!

Learn and participate without having to leave home by joining the webinar.  You will see the presentation on your computer screens and hear the presenter at the same time.  You can also interact with the presenters by sending messages online.

http://www.instantpresenter.com/britishcouncilph6

Hancocks and Poppycock

In a few weeks, perhaps sooner, Benigno Aquino III may affix his John Hancock on an executive order that many see will alter the playing field in the mining industry, warping statutes in mining long-held and established rationalizing economic activities against recent initiatives to protect the environment.

Expectedly, businessmen are alarmed not so much because of the substance of the forthcoming executive order and its effects on a statute that had gone through substantial if not comprehensive debate, but more on the matter of consistencies of economic policies under the Aquino administration. Wishy-washy in many instances, specifically where investments are sorely needed, the latent forward-backward movements are now upon an industry that has undeniably been a foundation for development.

Arrayed together with Aquino’s forthcoming imprimatur on the executive order that paints broad strokes over the word and logic of a standing statute are ten million signatures campaigned for and solicited over controversies concerning the battle between environmental protection and economic development in Palawan.

The signature campaign had initially come in the aftermath of a death attributed to mining controversies. It had served to impassion sentiments as well as sensibilities, highlighting issues in one sense but clouding facts in others.

The signature campaign heightened waning passions and effectively capitalized and cashed in on residual emotions, transforming grief into anger and fueling a hate campaign that ran on both truth and poppycock.

The importance of mining as a development vehicle for an economy like ours begs discernment between sentiments that expectedly side with the environmentalists behind the signature campaign against mining industry proponents on the opposite end of the debate spectrum. More so because of fallacies that have come out from both sides, most hitched on emotional bandwagons and unresolved issues.

It is unfortunate that Aquino’s now notorious incompetence in managing the economy has been of little help in discerning the issues that surround the controversy. He has himself been part of the problem and the wishy-washiness is a result of listening to presidential whisperers with one ear and listening to others with the other. Hence, the controversies that characterize the imminent executive order.

There has been an unusually large amount of fallacies scraped off controversial environmental issues, invariably scooped and piled upon the mining industry. These beg discernment when dealing with issues that go beyond what’s before us.

Discernment is critical in the face of recent events.

Too often, the mining industry is cast as the villain. When recent earthquakes that rocked the Visayas critics rode a media bandwagon and quickly blamed the mining industry.

The accusations have become standard even where the mining industry had been forthcoming enough to identify sectors within its own that might be to blame.

In the floods that swept across Mindanao, again, the mining industry was being blamed. Never mind that the culprits were logging concessions, small-scale miners and officials who allowed the urbanization of non-habitable areas.

In the run-up to the drafting of the controversial executive order, a civic group asked the president to suspend all mining activities for at least two years to allow for an alternative “rational” mining policy.

The impetus is a perceived laxity in the “regulatory and permitting procedures.”

Perhaps it is not laxity they see. Within months of Aquino’s inauguration he virtually reinforced exemptions to the total logging ban. It really depends on who has the president’s ear. Where an administration appears directionless, the first to whisper gets to steal first base.

Because of such lack of vision we can understand why the government would in one instance appear to be pro-mining and anti-environment, and then in another instance, turn completely around, flip-flop and turn environmentalist with the pending executive order.

Presidential executive orders, no matter how well intended cannot amend a law, much less repeal it. The Chamber of Mines and foreign investors cautioned against the issuance and implementation of the draft executive order. Entitled “Institutionalizing and Implementing Reforms in the Philippine Mining Sector, Providing Policies and Guidelines therefore, and For Other Purposes., it is perceived to oppose what critics label as “the aggressive promotion of mining in the whole country, that opens the country to large-scale mining operations.

To be specific as to where fallacies as well as poppycock lie, the controversial executive order contains provisions to complete a program for forest delineation that pin-points “remaining forests, critical watersheds and important biodiversity areas.”

At the core of conflicts in Palawan where mining critics fight an arena to prosecute these issues, these questions of forest delineation and “rational” mining policies raise doubts on the credibility of the critics.

Strangely, in contrast, it is in Palawan where these delineations and “rational” mining policies are well-established. In Palawan, there have indeed been delineations and the establishment of rational mining policies. The Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) and the Palawan Tropical Forestry Protection Program developed and approved by multilateral agencies and Palawan’s local constituencies disprove what critics claim as random destruction.

The SEP is specifically detailed for Palawan’s sustainable development under the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) – a body that oversees such development and also provides a venue for resolving disputes.

Unfortunately, outside the SEP, and beyond Palawan, those controversies are being prosecuted. Note the inordinate fallacy of numbers in the signature campaign.

The objective is to garner 10 million signatures. Given Palawan’s last verified 2000 population of 737,000 and against that applying a national growth rate of 1.9%, Palawan would have slightly over 906,000 by now. Notice the emergent aberration of 10 million signatures applied on a population that would have significantly less than that.

The number of residents in Palawan is by far less than a tenth of the signatures sought, so what’s the sense of a number that goes beyond a local mandate? Why carry out a signature campaign where those signing might not even be from Palawan? Obviously, the campaign is plainly an incendiary device designed to incite non-Palawenos to tell legitimate Palawan residents what’s best for them.

Photo: “Miatan” by Isabel Esterman, c/o Flickr. Some Rights Reserved

Originally posted at BlogWatch.Ph

This is a press statement .

Bureau of Customs Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence Danilo Lim issued an alert order against P 400 Million worth of counterfeit products at the Port of Manila, which he said when distributed to the buying public, may pose health and safety risk.

Lim said his office issued the order against two (2) forty-foot containers consigned to Imax Harbor. In coordination with Atty. Zsae Carrie de Guzman of the bureau’s Intellectual Property Rights Division, they noticed marked discrepancies in the origin and specification of the shipment. Upon closer examination, Lim said the shipments ‘s items were misdeclared.

The “hot containers” which were scheduled for public viewing this Monday, and which originally declared plastic wares and bags revealed the following counterfeit items:

1. 130, 000 capsules of counterfeit Tuseran Forte at 10 mg, 15 mg and 325 mg.
2. 55, 000 pieces of counterfeit cellular phone batteries (Nokia, Sony, Ericson, Motorola and Samsung)
3. 9,000 pieces of counterfeit cellular phone chargers.

Other counterfeit items found in the containers were:

1. 720 pieces of Louis Vuitton bags
2. 180 pieces of Coach bags
3. 10, 000 pieces of Hermes pouch/bags
4. 180 pieces of Chanel bags
5. 810 pieces of Gucci bags
6. 30, 000 pieces of wristwatches

Lim said this is the second biggest catch made by the Bureau’s IPRD and also one of the biggest shipments his office issued an alert order against. It was reported that prior to this, an estimated P 700 Million worth of fake luxury branded items were seized b the customs bureau from an operation it conducted at King’s Plaza Building at Binondo, Manila.

“President Aquino asked us to step up our efforts in the people’s fight against smuggling and corruption inside the bureau. This seizure is a response to that call. There will be more in the coming weeks and months, ” Lim said.

The former Brigadier General who was incarcerated for four years for mounting a military uprising against the previous government’s corruption said that they will not waver in the campaign versus smuggling and corruption.

“On behalf of Commissioner Ruffy Biazon, we will do everything in our power to prevent smuggled products especially those that pose a serious threat to the health of our people from entering our market,” Lim added.

Comm. Biazon has instructed the IPRD and the intelligence group headed by Lim to strengthen the enforcement on border patrol.

“I have assigned my best intelligence agents to help strengthen our common initiative on border patrol enforcement. Pagsusumikapan natin na panatilihing matatag ang mga bakod ng tuwid na daan laban sa mga smuggler at corrupt,” Lim concluded.

The counterfeit items reportedly originated from China via Hongkong

This is a press statement from Pesante Inc.

KAMPONG MAGBUBUKID PARA SA KARAPATAN SA LUPA. “KAGAWARAN NG REPORMANG AGRARYO, BIGAY-BAWI! TIWALING OPISYAL PAPANAGUTIN!

Mga mahigit sa 100 magbubukid mula sa mga lupain ni Francisco Duque sa mga bayan ng Pangasinan, mula sa lupain ng Modlex sa Cavite, libo-libong ektarya ng Hacienda Yulo sa Laguna, mga binabawian ng CLOA sa UCPB sa Batangas at Hacienda Maloles sa Laguna, mga pinaslangan, kinulong, ginipit sa lupain ng Saulog ng Mindoro at ang mga binubugbog na magbubukid sa malawak na lupaing nakatiwangwang sa bayan ng Coron, Palawan ang ngayon ay sama-samang maglulunsad ng pagkakampo sa harap ng Kagawaran ng Repormang Pansakahan sa lungsod ng Quezon upang iparating sa mga kinauukulan ang napakasaklap na inaabot ng mga magbubukid sa ibat-ibang lokalidad ng bansa para pagtatanggol sa Batas sa Repormang Agraryo.

Libo-libong mga bata, mga nanay at padre de pamilya ang patuloy na lumalaban para magkaroon ng disenteng pamumuhay sa ngalan ng pinahabang buhay ng “Repormang Agraryo” ngunit sa bawat Segundo ng pag-usad ng buhay, buhay din ang nawawala, nabubuwis sa ngalan ng Repormang Agraryo.

“Maraming magbubukid ang umasa sa “tuwid na daan” ni Pangulong Noynoy ngunit tila yata walang matuwid na daan bagkus ang binaluktot at pinutol na daan ang namamayani sa knayang administrasyon”, pahayag ng mga magbubukid sa lupain ni Francisco Duque sa Pangasinan.

Daggad pahayag ni Ka Mert Dumayas pangalawang pangulo ng PESANTE Pilipinas, ang sentro ng programa ng dating Pangulong Cory Aquino ay ipamahagi ang lahat ng mga lupaing agricultural, proteksyunan at bigyan ng suportang serbisyo ang mga magbubukid sa ngalan ng Repormang Agraryo at Hustisyang Panlipunan na siya ding itinatadhana ng 1987 Philippine Constitution. Bakit ngayon sa panahon ni Pinoy, hanggang taong 2014 na lamang ang Repormang Agraryo? Paano niya natitiyak na kanyang ipamahagi lahat ang natitirang lupaing agricultural, gayong taon-taon ay may backlog ang pangasiwaan ng DAR mula sa orihinal na target nito. Nais din naming matapos na ang pamamahagi ng lupa sa mg amagbubukid, ngunit hindi sa pamamaraang mapanlinlang. Karamihan ng mga magbubukid ay hinihikayat ng ilang tiwaling MARO na pumayag na lamang sa kagustuhan ng may-ari ng lupa na huwag ng sumailalim sa Repormang Agraryo dahil sa matatapos na ang batas.

At ang pinakamasahol, ay ang naipagkaloob ng CLOA sa mga magbubukid ay binabawi sa ngalan ng “Retention at Exemption”, mga probisyon sa batas na hindi dapat pinalusot ng DAR dahil sa walang legal na basehan kung batas at ang prosesong pinagdaanan din mismo ang susundin.

Hindi mananahimik ang kilusang magbubukid, hinahamon namin si Secretary Virgilio de los Reyes na pangunahan ang pagtutuwid ng daan. Papanagutin ang mga tiwaling opisyal sa loob ng Kagawaran.

Mananatili ang mga magbubukid sa harapan ng DAR upang bantayan ang mga dapat sanang “public servant at hindi landlord servant”, para sa makatotohanan at tapat ng pagpapatupad ng Repormang Agraryo.