- 11 minutes ago
Can the Senate change the number of votes needed to convict or acquit the Vice President?
The ongoing debate over the Senate impeachment voting threshold raises questions about how the Constitution should be interpreted and applied.
On Beyond the Headlines, Atty. Glenn Chong shares the defense’s perspective on the issue and explains the legal arguments behind the proposed change.
Join us on Beyond the Headlines.
Look Deeper. Think Better.
The ongoing debate over the Senate impeachment voting threshold raises questions about how the Constitution should be interpreted and applied.
On Beyond the Headlines, Atty. Glenn Chong shares the defense’s perspective on the issue and explains the legal arguments behind the proposed change.
Join us on Beyond the Headlines.
Look Deeper. Think Better.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
01:01The perfect latte is not brushed. It is crafted one cup at a time. Your perfect latte is ready. Coffee
01:11first, then everything else.
01:15When the Constitution says two-thirds of all the members of the Senate, does that mean 16 votes, no matter
01:24how many senators are actually present?
01:27Or can that number change when some senator judges are unable to participate?
01:34Good afternoon and welcome to Beyond the Headlines. I'm DJ Moises and today's conversation is brought to us by Coffee
01:40First.
01:41The Senate Impeachment Court has brought in Amici Curcure or the Friends of the Court to help settle this question.
01:51Four retired Supreme Court justices have now offered their interpretation of what the Constitution means by two-thirds of all
02:02the members of the Senate.
02:03Let's look deeper and think better.
02:07Joining us this afternoon is a lawyer and former representative of the Biliran Congressional District, Attorney Glenn Chong.
02:15But just like me, he was also stuck in traffic.
02:19And so we will just have to wait for him until he will be able to reach in a more
02:25stable venue and then he can join the conversation.
02:28At least from what he said, he would be at the venue in around five minutes or ten minutes.
02:33So between now until Attorney Glenn would be with us, just allow me to have a little bit of a
02:41recap now, especially of what transpired yesterday.
02:46Yesterday was already day 28 of the impeachment.
02:51Now, if we have, and by the way, for those with dissenting opinion,
02:57we also try to get the opinions or the perspective of both sides, meaning the defense side and also the
03:07prosecution side.
03:08But at least for the conversation that we've been having specific to the impeachment for the last few weeks in
03:17several episodes,
03:19in a nutshell, in terms of grave threats, we, at least from what I shared, I'm not a lawyer again,
03:26but it looked like the prosecution was not able to clearly establish whether there was an actual person that was
03:36commissioned to kill the president and the others
03:44that were stated in a video that the vice president made years ago.
03:51So that was the assessment.
03:55So both the defense and the prosecution were able to do a good job.
04:00The prosecution was able to present credible witnesses coming from the NBI.
04:08And the defense was also able to hold its own because they were able to prevent damage based on the
04:17testimonies coming from two senior leaders from the NBI.
04:21But they also stopped short in terms of actually being able to get a witness, like a firsthand witness to
04:30actually prove that the vice president indeed made an actual contact of an assassin.
04:39So that's my overall assessment of Article 4 of the impeachment.
04:47And then we moved to Article 1.
04:49And this time, we were, the Senate hearing covered, the Senate covered the confidential funds.
05:00And just like what we stated several episodes ago, the prosecution was able to establish the trail now that there
05:11were indeed transactions that happened that disbursed the money.
05:17And then the prosecution was also able to present questionable documents.
05:23But in my view, again, I am not a lawyer.
05:27The arrows then towards the end of Article 1 is already pointing towards Colonel La Chica,
05:35who was said to be the person allegedly who received the amount.
05:41And for some reason, he was not summoned to testify.
05:46So in my view, again, I'm not a lawyer.
05:48But to me, that is a huge gap because the arrows are already pointing there.
05:54And in my lay perspective, why don't we bring this guy into the investigation or to the hearing so that
06:00we would be able to hear out also what he actually did with the money that were eventually given to
06:08him.
06:08And for some strange reason, from my view, he was not called to testify.
06:15So now, yesterday was already day 28 of the impeachment.
06:20And they have already moved towards the section on unexplained wealth.
06:28And much of the conversation yesterday was centered around the business interests of the vice president and also her husband.
06:39And much of the discussion revolved around Metro City Child Foods Corporation.
06:46And it was presented in the impeachment court showing that the vice president was an incorporator and a shareholder of
06:58the company.
06:58In my view, again, I'm not a lawyer.
07:03This is potentially running against Article 7, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution that says the president and the vice
07:16president and other specified officials shall not, during their tenure,
07:23participate in any business, participate in any business, and must avoid conflict of interest.
07:31So, again, this is still on the side of the prosecution.
07:36So, the prosecution argued that remaining a shareholder and a board member after the vice president assumed her elected role
07:49as the second highest official of the Philippines,
07:51prohibited her from engaging in any business participation.
07:57But that is on the prosecution's side, their allegation and interpretation of the Constitution.
08:05So, I would be very interested how this will progress and would be hearing also the side of the defense.
08:14Because, to be fair with the defense, they've always been strong, in my view, as an everyday seboono, in terms
08:23of preventing further harm,
08:26especially when they sense that what's being presented is not necessarily backed by a solid evidence.
08:35And every time they sense that they're also quick to counter that.
08:41So, I'm also interested on how the defense will counter this.
08:46But, in my view, this is a strong opening of the prosecution in terms of the vice president's unexplained wealth.
08:58In fact, a SEC witness testified that SEC also has no record at all that the vice president actually transferred
09:08or divested her ownership.
09:12So, much of yesterday's discussion focused around that.
09:17So, I'm not sure if Attorney Glenn is already here.
09:22I'm here.
09:24Ah, okay.
09:24Attorney Glenn, thank you very much.
09:27So, actually, I'm also in Manila just like you.
09:33Yeah, I'm also in Manila just like you.
09:35And I was also stuck in traffic.
09:36I was in Rojas Boulevard, nine kilometers.
09:39But it took me an hour and a half to get me back to here.
09:46So, I'm in Rojas Boulevard also.
09:49Ah, you are?
09:50I'm in Rojas Boulevard.
09:52So, on my way to my meeting, I'm already very late.
09:55But anyway, I already told them that I have an appointment with you today.
10:00Okay, go ahead.
10:00You shoot your question.
10:01And thank you again for having me in your program.
10:04Thank you, Sasan Star.
10:05And thank you for making time for this.
10:07Welcome back to Beyond the Headlines.
10:09So, I'll start with the interview.
10:10So, Attorney Glenn, before we get into the feedback presented by the friends of the court, or what they would
10:19say, Amici Curie, let's talk about the practical situation.
10:27What is your take about the conviction threshold of two-thirds of all members of the Senate, which is 16?
10:38Irwin, the Constitution is very clear.
10:42No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
10:50So, the current membership of the Senate is 24.
10:55So, two-thirds is immutable 16.
10:59Hindi pwedeng baguhin yun.
11:01Because that is what the Constitution says.
11:05So, kahit isa-isahin natin yung mga comments ng mga Amici Curie, I can re-pack them.
11:15I will re-pack them.
11:17Sige, that said, that's actually part of the questions that I would ask.
11:22But I'll move forward to that part of the conversation.
11:26So, let's start with Chief Justice Hilario Davidi, former Chief Justice Hilario Davidi Jr.
11:34He said that the basis for computing two-thirds should be the number of senators who are qualified to vote.
11:43And so, he said that those who are detained, who are abroad, suspended, and otherwise legally prevented from exercising their
11:52functions should not be included.
11:55And then, what are your thoughts about this, Attorney Glenn?
12:01I have much respect for Chief Justice Hilario Davidi.
12:05But he had made qualifications with the Constitution as their wives did not.
12:11Walang sinabi sa Constitution natin that only functional senators, only those who are qualified to vote should be counted in
12:22the voting threshold.
12:23Walang sinabi.
12:24Ang sinabi ng Constitution, two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
12:29Ang sabi nga ni Justice Ascuna, all means all.
12:33And remember, it was Justice Ascuna who was in charge of that article on accountability of public officers.
12:42He did Chief Justice Hilario Davidi, although both of them were members of the Constitutional Convention.
12:49So, they were framers of the Constitution.
12:52Pero I would defer or give greater weight to Justice Ascuna, even if he's only an associate justice,
12:59because he was the one in charge of the provisions of the Constitution on accountability of public officers.
13:06So, ang sinabi ni Justice Ascuna, all means all.
13:08And that's really very clear in the Constitution.
13:11It did not qualify na only functioning senators should vote.
13:14It did not qualify that only qualified senators should vote.
13:19So, I think what Chief Justice, former Chief Justice Davidi said is quite similar to former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban,
13:33because although Panganiban acknowledged that it should be mathematically 16,
13:40but he also questioned the participation in trial for why those who could not participate in the trial should be
13:49allowed to influence the voting threshold.
13:53But former Chief Justice Renato Puno raised one unique point when he said that if it's really all members of
14:03the Senate,
14:04and that should be fixed, then it should have just, the Constitution should have just been direct in saying 16,
14:12instead of using a fraction.
14:16Yes.
14:19Darwin, dyan siya nagkamali, even if it's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
14:25To err is human.
14:26Okay, sinabi niya, kung intent ng constitutional framers na,
14:33nandun na ba sila?
14:34Sinabi mo, mayroon pa akong,
14:38isa pa lang?
14:39Okay.
14:41This is really a live conversation attorney, no?
14:45Okay.
14:46So, sinabi niya na dapat 16 ang nilagay, kung intent nila ay 16.
14:52Wrong.
14:53Bakit?
14:54Because the number of membership of the Senate can also be expanded.
15:01So, hindi pwedeng ilagay mo na 16,
15:04kasi kung, let's just say for example,
15:07inexpand natin yung membership of the Senate,
15:09instead of electing 24 senators maging 48,
15:13kung ilalagay mong 16,
15:15then you can have an impeachable officer
15:18being impeached on ang near minority,
15:2116 na lang out of 48.
15:24So, hindi pwedeng i-fix mo siya at 16.
15:27Dapat two-thirds.
15:28Ang two-thirds na intent ng constitutional framers is two-thirds talaga,
15:32whether the membership is 24 or 48 or 96.
15:36So, in fact,
15:37yung two-thirds na provision is a very flexible one.
15:41It accounts for the possibility
15:43na pwede tayong magdagdag ng senador.
15:46Gawin natin 30.
15:47So, the two-thirds would be 20.
15:50Di ba?
15:51Hindi mo pwedeng i-fix niya na 16.
15:53Kasi kung 16 niya, 30 na yung senators,
15:56then slim majority na lang,
15:58simple majority na lang ang kailangan to convict.
16:01So, that's my point.
16:04And earlier,
16:06you already mentioned
16:07former Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna,
16:10because of all the four,
16:13three seem to have a similar stand,
16:16and it was him
16:17who actually took the opposite position,
16:20because it was him,
16:22as you mentioned earlier,
16:23that said that as long as a person
16:25remains a member of the Senate,
16:27that senator belongs to the denominator.
16:31What are your thoughts, attorney,
16:33about some people
16:34who would also argue,
16:36non-lawyers like me,
16:38and other people
16:39who would argue na,
16:40yes,
16:41but the four
16:42are no longer participating
16:44in the conversation.
16:46How does that also,
16:48what's your take on that view as well?
16:52Well, actually, Darwin,
16:54mga kababayan,
16:55it does not really matter
16:56whether they,
16:58ang pinag-usapan natin dito
17:00is voting threshold.
17:01Ano yung minimum
17:03in order to convict
17:05an impeachable official?
17:07Yun yung,
17:08yun yung,
17:08ano eh,
17:09yun yung
17:10red line eh.
17:11Ito yung,
17:12ito yung threshold.
17:14Ito yung minimum
17:15para i-convict mo.
17:16Now,
17:17kung hindi nag-participate
17:19yung apat,
17:20it does not really matter.
17:22Basta,
17:22the minimum
17:23should be net.
17:24Yun yung minimum
17:25na requirement eh,
17:26yun yung minimum
17:27na,
17:27yun yung standard eh
17:28for conviction eh.
17:30Now,
17:30if you're going to,
17:32ito pa,
17:32meron ba akong idagdag,
17:33um,
17:35almost yung tatlo yata,
17:36aside from,
17:37apart from
17:38justice,
17:39the school,
17:40the other side,
17:43yung tatlo,
17:44sinabi nila
17:44that the Senate
17:46has the sole authority
17:51to craft rules,
17:53amend the rules
17:54with respect to impeachment.
17:56Well,
17:57that is true
17:57in one part.
17:59In one aspect,
17:59that is true.
18:00The Senate
18:01has the sole jurisdiction
18:02to set the rules,
18:04amend it,
18:05as they see fit.
18:06However,
18:07they should be reminded
18:08that they cannot go beyond
18:10the standards
18:11set by the Constitution.
18:13The Constitution
18:14also set it
18:15at two-thirds
18:16of all the members
18:17of the Senate.
18:17So even if they
18:18will craft the rules,
18:20san-sabihin nila,
18:21ito yung rules natin,
18:22you have to follow
18:23the greater standards
18:25set by the Constitution.
18:27And in the conviction rate,
18:28it's two-thirds
18:29of all the members.
18:30You cannot go below that
18:31simply because
18:32you have the jurisdiction
18:34to set the rules.
18:35Mali na naman yun.
18:36Hindi naman pwedeng,
18:38well,
18:38if the Senate
18:39will set it
18:41at a lower
18:42voting threshold,
18:44and then we can go
18:44to the Supreme Court
18:45and ask them
18:46to strike it down
18:47because that will
18:48give grave abuse
18:49and discretion.
18:50You need not
18:51follow the Constitution.
18:53Now,
18:54and you brought up
18:56an interesting point
18:57because my next question
18:59would have been
19:00if this is not
19:03resolved
19:04in this particular level
19:07and then
19:08should this be
19:09elevated
19:09to the Supreme Court?
19:11and you already
19:11mentioned that
19:12it should be
19:13the Supreme Court
19:14who would eventually
19:15have to
19:17decide on this.
19:19But what about
19:20your thoughts
19:20also,
19:21Attorney Glenn,
19:21about other people
19:23who would also say
19:24that the Senate
19:26has independence
19:29along with
19:30the three branches
19:31of government
19:32of the executive,
19:33legislative,
19:33where the Senate
19:34is part of,
19:35and then the judiciary,
19:36you know,
19:36where the Supreme Court
19:37is part of.
19:40And they said
19:40that the three branches
19:41should be independent
19:44from each other.
19:45So,
19:46what are your thoughts
19:46also about
19:47some people
19:47saying that
19:48if the Supreme Court
19:50will also veto
19:51this change,
19:52for example,
19:53they are already
19:55interfering
19:56on the legislative
19:58branch?
20:01Darwin,
20:02mga kababayan,
20:04the Supreme Court
20:06will not be
20:06interfering
20:07with the internal
20:08affairs
20:09of the Senate
20:10in case,
20:11actually,
20:11tama,
20:12si
20:13presiding officer
20:14Scudero doon,
20:15whatever his
20:16decision will be,
20:17somebody's bound
20:18to bring it
20:19to the Supreme Court.
20:20Somebody's going
20:21to question it
20:22in the Supreme Court.
20:23Whether
20:24i-maintain
20:24yan ang 16,
20:27may mag-petition
20:29yan sa Supreme Court.
20:30Whether it's
20:31below 16,
20:32may mag-petition
20:33yan sa Supreme Court.
20:35But when the Supreme Court
20:36takes judicial action
20:39on that petition,
20:42that is not interference.
20:43Bakit?
20:44Because there is also
20:45a provision
20:46in the Constitution
20:47granting the Supreme Court
20:49to take action
20:52on matters
20:53involving
20:53grave abuse
20:54of discretion.
20:55Wala yan
20:56sa 1973 Constitution.
20:58Kaya nung
20:59nag-marshalo tayo,
21:01ang sabi ng Supreme Court,
21:02political question yan.
21:03Hindi kami makikialam dyan.
21:05That's an executive
21:06decision.
21:07But now,
21:08under the 1987
21:09Constitution,
21:10binago natin yan.
21:11Nilagyan natin na
21:13kapangyarihan
21:13ang Supreme Court
21:15to
21:17decide on
21:17issues of
21:18grave abuse
21:19of discretion
21:19amounting to
21:21lack
21:21or excess
21:21of jurisdiction.
21:23So in this case,
21:24kung ako,
21:24ang petition ko
21:25sa Supreme Court,
21:26the Senate
21:27exceeded
21:28its jurisdiction.
21:30There is
21:31grave abuse
21:32of discretion
21:32tantamount
21:33to lack
21:34or excess
21:35of jurisdiction
21:35because hindi nila
21:37sinunod ang standard,
21:38the high standard
21:39set by the Constitution
21:40in crafting
21:42the rules
21:43on the voting
21:44threshold.
21:45O siyempre,
21:45the Supreme Court
21:46is duty-bound
21:47to take action
21:49on that petition
21:50and that
21:50is not
21:51interference.
21:51That is
21:52exercise of
21:53constitutional
21:54duty
21:54and
21:55constitutional
21:56power
21:56on the
21:57part of
21:57the Supreme
21:57Court.
21:59And then,
22:01because I think
22:02you have already
22:03stated also
22:04clearly
22:05your
22:06position
22:07on how
22:08the
22:08input
22:09of the
22:10Amici
22:11Kriurei
22:11or the
22:12Friends of
22:12the Court
22:12were processed
22:14and your
22:15input is also
22:16helpful at
22:16least
22:17in enlightening
22:19our viewers
22:19on the role
22:20of the
22:20Supreme Court
22:21and also
22:22the role
22:22of the
22:23legislative
22:24body
22:24such as
22:25the
22:25Senate.
22:25Now,
22:26my next
22:26question
22:27actually
22:27is more
22:28of an
22:28education
22:29or we're
22:29zooming
22:29out
22:30because
22:30some
22:31of our
22:32viewers
22:32may be
22:33misled
22:34because
22:34the input
22:35are already
22:36coming from
22:36former chief
22:37justices
22:38and one
22:39associate
22:39chief
22:40justice.
22:41What is
22:42the role
22:42of the
22:43Amici
22:44Kriurei
22:44in an
22:46impeachment
22:46proceeding
22:47such as
22:47this?
22:50No,
22:50as
22:51friends
22:51of the
22:52court,
22:52Amici
22:53Kriurei
22:53is actually
22:54Latin
22:55for
22:56friends.
22:57Amici
22:57is
22:58friends.
22:59Kriurei
22:59is
22:59court,
23:00friends
23:00of the
23:00court.
23:01The
23:01purpose
23:01there is
23:02only to
23:03impart
23:04their
23:04thoughts,
23:05their
23:05views
23:06about
23:06particular
23:07issues
23:07that the
23:08court
23:08is bound
23:09to
23:11take up.
23:12In this
23:12case,
23:13they are
23:13voting on
23:14the voting
23:15threshold.
23:15They are
23:15planning to
23:16change the
23:17voting
23:17threshold.
23:17So they're
23:18asking for
23:19the
23:19opinion
23:20of
23:20these
23:20experts.
23:22They're
23:23only asking
23:23but it is
23:24not
23:24binding
23:25on them.
23:27So
23:27nasa
23:28individual
23:28senator
23:29judges
23:29yun,
23:30kung
23:31nasway
23:31siya,
23:32na
23:32convince
23:33siya
23:34ang
23:34argument
23:35ni
23:35Justice
23:36Suna
23:36or
23:37ng
23:37argument
23:38ng
23:38ibang
23:39chief
23:40justices,
23:41yung
23:41tatlong
23:41chief
23:42justices.
23:42So it
23:43all depends
23:44upon them.
23:44So that's
23:45based on
23:45their
23:45conscience
23:46when
23:47the issue
23:48of voting
23:48threshold
23:48is brought
23:49before
23:49them.
23:49But it
23:50is not
23:50binding
23:51on them.
23:51It will
23:52only serve
23:53as a
23:53guidance
23:53for them
23:54to make
23:55that
23:55decision.
23:56And for
23:57those of
23:57our viewers
23:58who are not
23:59necessarily
23:59agreeing with
24:00the conversation,
24:01please feel
24:01free also
24:02to share
24:02your thoughts.
24:03Now the
24:03other part
24:04actually,
24:04I'm down
24:05to my
24:05last two
24:06questions,
24:06attorney Glenn.
24:07And again,
24:08I'm not
24:09a lawyer,
24:10but I've
24:10read actually
24:11that the
24:11constitution,
24:12and I
24:13like your
24:14comment about
24:14this,
24:15the constitution
24:16uses very
24:17specific language
24:18when it
24:19sets voting
24:20requirements.
24:21So for
24:21example,
24:22in the
24:22impeachment,
24:23the language
24:24actually being
24:25used is
24:25two-thirds
24:26of all
24:27members of
24:28the Senate.
24:29But in
24:29other
24:29situations,
24:31the constitution
24:32refers to
24:32a quorum,
24:33for example,
24:34for the
24:34members who
24:35are only
24:35present when
24:37what is
24:38needed for
24:39the Senate
24:40to conduct
24:41business.
24:41So very,
24:43at least from
24:44my observation,
24:47very specific
24:47on if it's
24:49just a quorum
24:50that's required
24:50or if it's
24:52really all
24:53the members
24:54of the
24:54Senate that's
24:55required.
24:56So what are
24:56your thoughts
24:57also about
24:57this,
24:58attorney Glenn?
25:00Well,
25:01the constitution
25:02is really
25:02very clear.
25:03Darwin,
25:04you are very
25:04correct there.
25:06The literal
25:07meaning of
25:08the word
25:08should be
25:09given
25:09import should
25:10be given
25:11substance
25:11because that's
25:12what it
25:13actually intended
25:14it to be
25:15because otherwise
25:16if they intended
25:17some other
25:17thing,
25:18they would
25:19have specified
25:19it.
25:20Kaya nga,
25:21hindi nila
25:21nilagay na
25:2216 because
25:23they are also
25:25thinking that
25:26baka pwedeng
25:27i-expand
25:28yung
25:28membership
25:29of the
25:29Senate in
25:30the future.
25:31So two-thirds
25:32ang nilagay nila
25:33and that's
25:34fixed two-thirds.
25:35It cannot be
25:35less than that.
25:36Now,
25:38the more
25:38important,
25:39Darwin,
25:40is I
25:40would like
25:41to point
25:43this out
25:43sa ating
25:43mga kababayan.
25:46May example
25:47doon si
25:49Senator
25:49Lacson
25:50nung tinanong
25:51niya,
25:52yung mga
25:52justices,
25:53diba?
25:53Sabi niya,
25:54what if
25:54nine,
25:56yung
25:56siyam na
25:56justices,
25:58siyam na
25:58senator
25:59judges
25:59were
26:00stranded
26:01in the
26:01Middle
26:01East.
26:02so the
26:03result
26:04would be
26:04only
26:0515
26:05senators
26:06joining
26:07the
26:07impeachment
26:08proceedings.
26:09If
26:1016
26:10is the
26:10voting
26:11threshold,
26:12hindi tayo
26:13makapag-result
26:14in a
26:14conviction.
26:17Makakalusot
26:17yung
26:18accountable
26:18impeachable
26:20official.
26:21Wala ni
26:22isa sa mga
26:23justices
26:24ang sumagot
26:24ng tama.
26:25To my
26:25mind.
26:26Because
26:26ang sagot
26:27ko dyan,
26:27if
26:28that
26:29is
26:29the
26:29case,
26:29yung
26:30siyam
26:30na
26:30stranded,
26:3115
26:32na
26:32lang
26:32ang
26:32natira,
26:33you
26:33do
26:33not
26:33proceed
26:34with
26:34the
26:34impeachment
26:35proceedings.
26:36If
26:36i-suspend
26:37mo yung
26:38proceedings
26:38rather than
26:39baguhin
26:40mo yung
26:40voting
26:41threshold,
26:41you
26:42violate
26:42the
26:43constitution,
26:44the
26:44clear
26:44intent
26:45of the
26:45framers
26:46of the
26:46constitution,
26:47i-violate
26:47mo,
26:47i-baliwala
26:48mo,
26:49just for
26:49convenience.
26:51Tutal,
26:52wala namang
26:52emergency
26:53that will
26:54last
26:54forever.
26:55Sooner
26:55or
26:55later,
26:56the
26:56nine senators
26:57will be
26:57able
26:58to
26:58come
26:58back.
26:59And
26:59you're
26:59there,
26:59you have
27:00completed
27:0124
27:01senators.
27:02However,
27:03kung
27:03ibaba mo
27:04yung
27:04voting
27:04threshold,
27:05gamitin
27:06mong
27:06denominator
27:06yung
27:0715,
27:08di ba?
27:08Kasi
27:09sabi niya,
27:0915 na
27:10lang
27:10ang
27:10natira,
27:11ang
27:11siyam
27:11nasa
27:11abroad.
27:12So,
27:1315 ang
27:13denominator,
27:14two-thirds,
27:15sampo.
27:16Now,
27:17whether
27:19na-stranded
27:20man sila,
27:20or
27:21nakulong
27:21sila,
27:22or in
27:22hiding
27:23sila,
27:24ang
27:24mangyayari
27:24niyan,
27:2614
27:26senators
27:27did
27:27not
27:27convict.
27:29Only
27:2910
27:30convicted.
27:31So,
27:32the result
27:32now is
27:34less
27:34than a
27:35majority
27:35ang
27:36nag-convict
27:37ng isang
27:38impeachable
27:38official,
27:39di ba?
27:40Going back
27:40to the
27:40example,
27:41nine senators
27:42are
27:43non-functioning,
27:45sabihin natin
27:45non-functioning,
27:46not qualified,
27:4815 na lang
27:48ang natira,
27:49binago mo
27:49yung
27:49threshold
27:50to
27:50two-thirds
27:50of
27:5115.
27:52So,
27:5310,
27:54all the
27:5410
27:54convicted
27:55impeachable
27:56official,
27:57but the
27:57five,
27:58present,
27:58did not,
27:59and the
27:59nine,
28:00non-functioning,
28:01did not.
28:02So,
28:03here you are,
28:04it results
28:05in an
28:05absurdity,
28:06na-convict
28:07yung
28:07public
28:08impeachable
28:09official for
28:11way less
28:11than half
28:12of the
28:12membership
28:13of the
28:13senate.
28:15So,
28:17I'm not
28:18a lawyer,
28:19but I
28:19will also
28:20have to
28:20agree with
28:21that,
28:22no?
28:22So,
28:22that's why
28:23the
28:24constitution
28:25did not
28:25explicitly
28:26specify a
28:27number,
28:28no?
28:28But only
28:29specified
28:30two-thirds
28:31of all,
28:32no?
28:33The
28:33members of
28:34the
28:34senate.
28:35So,
28:36final question
28:36for you,
28:37attorney Glenn,
28:37because I
28:38know that
28:38you also
28:38are supposed
28:39to be in
28:39another
28:40meeting,
28:40no?
28:41This
28:41one is,
28:44just in
28:46case the
28:47senate would
28:48change the
28:49threshold,
28:51no?
28:51And the
28:52impeachment
28:53proceeding has
28:54already begun,
28:55no?
28:55It's like
28:56changing the
28:58rules of
28:59the game
28:59while the
29:01game is
29:01already
29:02ongoing,
29:03no?
29:03What are
29:03your thoughts
29:04about this
29:05as well?
29:08That's a
29:10very important
29:10point to
29:11stress.
29:12about
29:13natandaan
29:14you,
29:15Darwin,
29:16mga
29:16kababayan,
29:17noong
29:18nagsimula
29:19pa lang
29:19yung
29:19impeachment
29:20proceedings,
29:21the chairman
29:22already
29:23ruled,
29:23the presiding
29:25officer
29:25already
29:26ruled,
29:26you need
29:2716 votes
29:28to convict.
29:29Now,
29:29take note,
29:30no one
29:31appealed
29:32that
29:32ruling.
29:33Walang
29:34nag-appela
29:34ng ruling
29:35na yun.
29:35At the
29:36time it
29:37was made
29:37on the
29:38first day
29:38of the
29:39impeachment
29:39proceedings,
29:40walang
29:40umapila.
29:41So,
29:42because of
29:42that,
29:43the ruling
29:44assumed the
29:45nature of
29:45a final
29:46order.
29:47So,
29:48that is
29:49the context
29:50in which
29:50the prosecution
29:51decided to
29:53present the
29:54evidence.
29:55That is the
29:55context,
29:56that is the
29:56rule by
29:58which the
29:58defense
29:59decided to
30:00how to
30:01defend
30:02the vice
30:03president.
30:04Diba?
30:05Yun yun eh.
30:05Dalawang
30:06teams of
30:06players
30:07yan,
30:07prosecution
30:08sa kabilang
30:09team,
30:10si defense
30:10sa kabilang
30:11team.
30:12Ang
30:12judge
30:13nagsabi,
30:1416
30:14ang kailangan
30:15to convict.
30:16So,
30:16ito yung
30:19playing rules.
30:21Ito yung
30:21rules of the
30:22game.
30:22Yun yung
30:23inasume
30:24ng defense,
30:25yun yung
30:25inasume
30:25ng prosecution.
30:26Then,
30:27two months
30:27later,
30:28umapila
30:28sa Senator
30:29Erwin
30:29Tolfo.
30:30That
30:31appeal
30:31should not
30:32have been
30:32given due
30:32course.
30:33That
30:34appeal
30:34should not
30:34have been
30:35entertained
30:35already.
30:36Hindi na
30:36dapat
30:36in-entertain
30:37yun
30:37because
30:38the
30:38time
30:38to
30:38appeal
30:39is
30:39long
30:39gone.
30:40Kung
30:40nag-appila
30:41dapat
30:41si
30:42Senator
30:43Tolfo,
30:43he should
30:44have
30:44appealed
30:44it
30:44right
30:45then
30:45and
30:45there
30:45or
30:46a few
30:46days
30:47thereafter.
30:48Hindi
30:48two
30:48months
30:49later,
30:49diba?
30:50Mga
30:51end of
30:52August
30:52na yun
30:53or early
30:53September
30:54na yun
30:54nung
30:56umapila
30:56siya.
30:56It was
30:57in the
30:57nature
30:57of an
30:57appeal
30:58because
30:58there was
30:59a
30:59ruling.
30:59The
31:05you change
31:07the rules
31:07in the
31:07middle
31:08of the
31:08game.
31:09That
31:10is not
31:10fair
31:11to the
31:12vice
31:12president.
31:14That's
31:14never
31:15fair
31:16to the
31:17vice
31:17president.
31:18Sige,
31:19Darwin,
31:20go ahead.
31:20And I
31:21did
31:22recall
31:23that when
31:23we had
31:23a first
31:24episode
31:24about
31:25the
31:25impeachment,
31:26part of
31:27the
31:27points
31:27that were
31:28discussed
31:28there was
31:29when the
31:29presiding
31:30officer
31:30said
31:31that it's
31:31two-thirds
31:32of all
31:34the
31:34members
31:34of the
31:34Senate
31:35are
31:3516.
31:36And yes,
31:36the
31:36proceeding
31:36just
31:37continued
31:37after he
31:38said
31:38those.
31:41Yeah,
31:42walang
31:42nag-object.
31:44Walang
31:44nag-object,
31:44walang
31:45umapila.
31:45Tuloy-tuloy
31:46yung
31:46proceedings.
31:47Now,
31:47kitang-kita
31:48ng taong
31:48bayan,
31:49yun.
31:50Ito
31:50yung
31:51rules.
31:51Sino
31:52bang
31:52gustong
31:53maglaro
31:54ng
31:54basketball
31:54nasa
31:55kalagitaan
31:56ng
31:56laro?
31:58Babaguhin
31:59mo yung
31:59rules.
32:00Sino
32:01gustong
32:01maglaro?
32:02Oh,
32:03yung
32:03mga
32:05sabong
32:06yiro
32:06dyan.
32:07Sige,
32:08sinong
32:09gustong
32:11magpatari
32:12dyan
32:12o
32:14magsabong
32:15dyan?
32:15Nababaguhin
32:16mo yung rules
32:16habang yung
32:17mga
32:17manok
32:17nandun
32:18na sa
32:18loob.
32:19Nagsasabungan
32:20na sila.
32:21Nobody
32:22wants
32:22that
32:22because
32:23it violates
32:25the
32:25elemental
32:25rule
32:26of fairness.
32:27So,
32:28ang resulta
32:28dyan,
32:29Darwin,
32:29mga
32:29kababayan,
32:30kapag
32:31pinilit
32:31nila
32:32ng
32:34mga
32:35senador.
32:36And these
32:36senators
32:37are
32:37very much
32:39aligned
32:40with the
32:40prosecution.
32:42Kitang-kita
32:43naman,
32:44kung sino-sino
32:44itong mga
32:45senador
32:45na ito.
32:46They are
32:46aligned
32:47with the
32:47prosecution.
32:48They are
32:49out to
32:49convict
32:50the
32:50vice
32:50president
32:52to the
32:52extent of
32:53changing
32:54the rules
32:54in the
32:54middle
32:55of the
32:55game.
32:56hindi
32:57tatanggapin
32:57ng
32:58taong
32:58bayan
32:58yan.
32:59Because
33:01ako for
33:01one,
33:02I can
33:04equate
33:05myself,
33:06I can
33:06commiserate
33:07myself,
33:08place
33:08myself
33:09in the
33:09position
33:09of the
33:09vice
33:10president.
33:11Nakung
33:11nangyari
33:11ito
33:12sa akin.
33:13How would
33:14I feel?
33:15Hahayaan
33:16ko lang
33:16ba?
33:17Nakasuhan
33:18mo ako
33:18tapos
33:19in the
33:19middle
33:19of the
33:20game,
33:20mapaguhin
33:21mo.
33:21Diba
33:21tinanong
33:22nila
33:22si
33:22Justice
33:24Kabotahitang,
33:25na
33:26pwede
33:27bang
33:27baguhin
33:27ang
33:27rules
33:28of
33:28evidence
33:28habang
33:29naglilitis
33:30na
33:30kayo?
33:30Sabi
33:31ni Justice
33:31Tan,
33:32hindi.
33:32Hindi
33:32pwede.
33:33Because
33:34it violates
33:34the rules
33:35of
33:35fair play.
33:36It
33:36violates
33:37the rules
33:37of
33:39about
33:39every
33:40other
33:40rule
33:41in the
33:42court.
33:43Nababaguhin
33:43mo,
33:43hindi
33:43pwede
33:44nga.
33:44So,
33:46why
33:46leave it
33:46at that?
33:4716?
33:48And
33:49then,
33:49if you
33:49can
33:50convict,
33:50wala
33:50tayo
33:50magagawa
33:51dyan.
33:51But
33:52if you
33:52cannot,
33:52then you
33:53have to
33:53accept
33:53it.
33:54Kaysa
33:55baguhin
33:55mo,
33:56just to
33:56ensure a
33:56conviction.
33:57Because
33:57if that
33:58is the
33:58case,
33:59hindi
33:59tatanggapin
33:59ng taong
34:00bayan
34:00yan.
34:01Any
34:01person,
34:02any
34:02ordinary
34:03Filipino,
34:03can
34:04commiserate
34:05with the
34:05position
34:05of the
34:06vice
34:06president.
34:08Maiintindihan
34:08nila yan,
34:08masasaktan
34:09yung taong
34:10bayan,
34:10na ginawa
34:11nyo yan
34:11sa isang
34:11tao,
34:12simply
34:12because
34:13you
34:13want
34:13her
34:13removed
34:14from
34:14office.
34:16So
34:17thank
34:17you
34:18very
34:18much
34:18attorney
34:19Glenn
34:19for
34:19helping
34:20us
34:21unpack
34:21what
34:22could
34:23have
34:23been
34:23a
34:23complicated
34:25conversation
34:26but
34:26very
34:27important
34:27constitutional
34:28question
34:29and what
34:29you said
34:29also in
34:30the
34:30context
34:31of
34:31fairness
34:32which
34:32is
34:33fundamental
34:33in
34:34a
34:36proceeding
34:36especially
34:37as
34:37important
34:37as
34:38this
34:38one
34:38in
34:39which
34:39the
34:39Philippines
34:40is
34:40also
34:40establishing
34:41a
34:41precedence
34:42and so
34:43it
34:43also
34:44matters
34:44that
34:44at
34:45least
34:45to
34:45me
34:45would
34:46agree
34:46with
34:47what
34:47you
34:48just
34:48said
34:48that
34:48we
34:48have
34:48to
34:49be
34:49careful
34:50in
34:51terms
34:51of
34:51how
34:52we
34:53also
34:53ensure
34:54that
34:54this
34:55is
34:56aligned
34:56to
34:56the
34:56constitution
34:58let me
34:59point
34:59this
34:59out
35:00also
35:02the
35:03Philippines
35:03is
35:03known
35:04for
35:04changing
35:04the
35:05rules
35:05changing
35:06horses
35:06in
35:06midstream
35:07mga
35:08rules
35:08natin
35:09mga
35:09batas
35:10natin
35:10binabago
35:11natin
35:11in the
35:12middle
35:12of the
35:12game
35:13and
35:14that's
35:14why
35:14foreigners
35:15don't
35:15want
35:15to
35:15invest
35:16in
35:16our
35:16country
35:18nagtataka
35:19tayo
35:19imagine
35:20in
35:212025
35:21about
35:23235
35:24billion
35:24dollars
35:25were poured
35:26into
35:26Southeast
35:27Asia
35:27foreign
35:28direct
35:29investments
35:30money
35:30that could
35:31be used
35:32to build
35:32factories
35:33infrastructure
35:34other
35:35businesses
35:36that could
35:36give jobs
35:37to people
35:37make
35:38how
35:38do
35:39have
35:39to
35:39make
35:39$235
35:40billion
35:41we
35:42got
35:42barely
35:43$10
35:43billion
35:44the
35:44lowest
35:45in
35:46Southeast
35:46Asia
35:46in
35:47Southeast
35:48Asia's
35:48major
35:48economies
35:49we
35:50got
35:50the
35:50lowest
35:50why
35:51because
35:51investors
35:52don't want
35:52to invest
35:53in our
35:53country
35:54pinabago
35:55natin
35:56yung
35:56batas
35:56in the
35:57middle
35:57of their
35:58investment
35:59we
36:00have
36:00that
36:00propensity
36:01to
36:02change
36:03the rules
36:03in the
36:04middle
36:04of the
36:04game
36:04ito
36:05is an
36:06example
36:06we
36:07should
36:07not
36:07do
36:07that
36:08because
36:10it
36:11does
36:11not
36:11bode
36:12well
36:12for our
36:13message
36:14of
36:14consistency
36:16predictability
36:17that's
36:17what
36:18businesses
36:18need
36:18imagine
36:20magpupunda
36:21ka ng
36:21billion
36:21billion
36:22dolyar
36:22sa isang
36:23bansa
36:23and
36:23hindi
36:23mo
36:23bansa
36:24ibang
36:25bansa
36:25and
36:26then
36:26the
36:26rules
36:26can
36:26get
36:27changed
36:27as
36:28often
36:29as
36:29the
36:29authorities
36:30would
36:30want
36:30it
36:31walang
36:31predictability
36:33that's
36:34why
36:34we
36:34suffer
36:34in
36:34the
36:34long
36:35run
36:37so
36:37i
36:37think
36:37the
36:38senate
36:38should
36:38stop
36:39middling
36:39with
36:39the
36:39voting
36:40threshold
36:40because
36:41it's
36:42not
36:42only
36:42filipinos
36:43who
36:43are
36:43hindi
36:44lang
36:45naman
36:45filipino
36:45ang
36:45nagbabantay
36:46dito
36:46sa
36:47impeachment
36:47proceedings
36:48we are
36:48also
36:49being
36:49monitored
36:49across
36:50the
36:50globe
36:51by
36:51other
36:51countries
36:51by
36:52other
36:52people
36:55so
36:56thank
36:56you
36:56very
36:56much
36:57attorney
36:57glenn
36:57for
36:58enlightening
36:58us
36:59on
36:59this
37:00important
37:01questions
37:02and
37:02topics
37:06and
37:07thank you
37:08until next time
37:09until next time
37:10yes we will always be glad to have you in the show
37:15please make time
37:16and actually
37:17in my venue
37:17so
37:18hindi lako lumabas
37:19ng sasakyan
37:20pag maputol na naman
37:21yung signal
37:22like kanina
37:22naputol yung signal
37:23okay thank you
37:25and
37:26until next time
37:27until next time
37:28attorney glenn
37:29so
37:29that's
37:30attorney
37:32glenn
37:33chong
37:33he's a lawyer
37:34and former
37:35representative
37:36of the
37:37biliran
37:37congressional
37:38congressional
37:39district
37:40and
37:41here
37:42in
37:43sunset
37:43we also
37:43welcome
37:44other
37:45views
37:45so
37:46if
37:46some
37:47of
37:47our
37:47viewers
37:47have
37:48dissenting
37:48opinions
37:49on what
37:50were
37:50discussed
37:50you can
37:51drop
37:51them
37:51in the
37:52comment
37:52section
37:52and we
37:53would
37:53for
37:54the
37:54reasonable
37:55ones
37:56we would
37:56engage
37:57in those
37:57conversations
37:58and then
37:59we would
38:00also
38:00welcome
38:01those
38:01with
38:02dissenting
38:02opinions
38:03who
38:03also
38:03guest
38:03on our
38:04show
38:04hopefully
38:04by
38:05tomorrow
38:05we
38:06will
38:06be
38:06able
38:06to
38:07hear
38:08the
38:08side
38:08on the
38:09prosecution
38:09this
38:10time
38:10if
38:11that
38:11interview
38:12arrangement
38:13will
38:13pull
38:14through
38:14so
38:17thank
38:18you
38:18for
38:19joining
38:19us
38:19at least
38:20in this
38:20important
38:22conversation
38:23so
38:24what is
38:25clear
38:25at least
38:25at this
38:26point
38:26given
38:27all the
38:27opinions
38:28and the
38:28views
38:29that we've
38:29been hearing
38:30online
38:31and even
38:31in our
38:32conversations
38:33with friends
38:34what is
38:34clear at
38:35this point
38:35is that
38:36this is
38:36not a
38:37simple
38:37question
38:38of
38:39mathematics
38:40it involves
38:41constitutional
38:42language
38:43the
38:43senate's
38:44role
38:44as an
38:45impeachment
38:45court
38:46and the
38:47rules
38:47that
38:48govern
38:48how
38:49that
38:49constitutional
38:50threshold
38:51is
38:51determined
38:52and as
38:53the
38:53senate
38:54considers
38:54the
38:55issue
38:55we
38:56the
38:56everyday
38:57filipinos
38:57should
38:58be
38:58watching
38:59not
38:59only
39:00the
39:00outcome
39:01but
39:01also
39:02the
39:02legal
39:03reasoning
39:03and
39:04constitutional
39:05principles
39:06behind
39:07the
39:08decision
39:08so
39:08I'm
39:09DJ
39:09Moises
39:10shout
39:10out
39:11to
39:11coffee
39:11first
39:11for
39:12supporting
39:12conversations
39:13that
39:13matter
39:14this
39:15is
39:15beyond
39:15the
39:16headlines
39:16let's
39:16continue
39:17to
39:17look
39:18deeper
39:18and
39:19think
39:19better
39:19have a
39:20good
39:21afternoon
39:21okay
39:27it
39:28starts
39:28with
39:28a
39:28fresh
39:29shot
39:29of
39:29espresso
39:31bold
39:32rich
39:33pulled
39:34just
39:34right
39:36then
39:37comes
39:38the
39:38milk
39:38steamed
39:39smooth
39:39and
39:41balanced
39:41the
39:42perfect
39:43latte
39:43is
39:44not
39:44brushed
39:44it
39:45is
39:45crafted
39:46one
39:47cup
39:47at
39:48a
39:48time
39:48your
39:49perfect
39:49latte
39:50is
39:50ready
39:50coffee
39:51first
39:52then
39:53everything
39:54else
39:55do
40:02do