​@FiscalEJ's first recorded interview after his unanimous, 3-0 win over Atty. Ranny Libayan. 0:00 - Into 2:57 - First interview at Melo Yap's Livestream 5:38 - After-debate feels 5:59 - Debate Preparation 8:41 - How Melo Yap convinced him and debate experience highlights 11:27 - After-debate celebration 12:05- Being an instant local celebrity 15:15 - 3-0 verdict feels 16:29 - Atty. Libayan as a debater 19:37 - Vitriol from the Libayan camp 20:51 - Dealing with salty Libayan fans 21:33 - The debate in layman's terms 24:44 - The problem with the Udang Case (Libayan's contention) 29:03 - The Romeo and Juliet Rule 31:48 - FEJ's Law Career 34:50 - Hierarchies in the Legal Profession 42:22 - Differences between Senate hearings and court hearings 52:10 - Importance of Senate Hearings in Aid of Legislation to Government 53:27- What is jurisprudence? 55:21 - Are there different kinds of Laws? 58:40 - How much of the Law is subject to interpretation? ➡️Link in bio. #komiksman #komiksmanpodcast #tpkp #pinoyp

Video Transcript / Subtitles:( AI generated. About AI subtitles » )

* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider becoming a patron to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com

Welcome to the Powerful Comics and Podcast!

Okay, so, I am with the man of the hour.

The one and only Fiscal EJ 3-0!

3-0 tayo!

Ay, teka, ano nangyari?

Yan!

From Ormoc City, fresh from his unanimous victory against Atty. Libayan, mang budihing abogado!

Pero ano, kasi I am very honored that I got first dibs sa interview kay Fiscal EJ.

And yan, I was told na may mga nakapila na gustong mag-interview sa'yo.

But parang you kept your promise to me that I would be the first one.

So, thank you for that, Fiscal EJ.

So, Fiscal EJ, gumusta?

I am fine. It's been, I think, how many days has it been from the debate?

Since the debate?

Mga 3-4 days?

Mga 3-4 days, mga ganun.

Actually, para sa akin.

I'm fine. It's back to work. It's back to my usual routine.

So, okay lang. Nothing's changed.

Sa akin, parang kahapon lang. Parang natutuwa pa rin.

Pero although in YouTube, makikita mo na pinag-uusapan pa rin yung nangyari sa aftermath ng debate.

Maraming naggagawa ng mga reaction videos.

So, we're gonna be talking about those things right now on this episode.

And we're doing this episode kasi yung isang...

Actually, we were supposed to do this before the debate.

Diba?

But then again, syempre, you are busy with work.

And hindi mo naman pwedeng unahin yung first things first.

At syaka nagbabar exam yata ngayon. Diba?

So, ewan.

Yes.

So, I suppose, I heard na parang busy yung mga abogado especially fiscal prosecutors.

Naka-bar shirt nga ako ngayon.

Yun. Shout out. Bar DPS, Western Leyte.

Bar Ops. Bar Operations.

Bar Ops.

Bar Operations yan. For my students in Western Leyte College.

Shout out sa mga students ni Fiscal EJ.

Saka kita namin yung mga photos nyo.

3-0 sa classroom.

Alright, magingay!

Diba? Are those law students? Yung mga nandun?

Yes. Yes. They are first year law students taking up criminal law.

Yan.

Diba?

Okay, and again, I was saying kasi yung first time na interview kita was with Meloy up on his channel.

And unfortunately medyo, it got a little bit out of hand.

Diba? So ngayon ay babawi ako sa'yo fiscal EJ.

Okay? Para I'm gonna give you the interview that you deserve.

Okay? Especially now it's even sweeter because we are now, we achieved what we wanted.

And I am very honored to be part of this journey kasi di ko nga magets.

Some people are mocking the efforts of us rehearsing.

Diba? That we are preparing, actually preparing instead of taking it as a compliment.

Diba? And it's so mind-boggling to me how people can take that as a negative.

Diba? Parang nag-prepare kami. Pwede ka rin, di naman namin kasalanan kung hindi ka nag-prepare.

Diba? Bakit mo kami... At saka isa pa, I just want to say this,

kaya lang naman namin tinulungan si fiscal EJ is because of technical difficulties.

Hindi siya...

Tama. Tama.

Wala kaming ambag dun sa mga arguments niya.

Wala kaming... It's absurd to think that we will be coaching a fiscal.

Okay? So purely aesthetics kasi hindi naman sanay mag-vlog at humarap sa camera si fiscal EJ. Like that.

Sabi nga ni Melo, it will take 15 minutes for me to unzip a file.

Yeah. And also, props to Melo Yap. This is also his victory.

Yes. Yes.

This is also Melo Yap's victory. Kumbaga, na-redeem talaga si Melo Yap dahil dito.

And whether the other side likes it or not, we don't care. This is also...

Kaya I really appreciated when you said that kung hindi dahil kay Melo Yap, hindi mangyayari yung debate.

It's true. It's true.

And I'm happy that you confirmed it for everyone to know.

Anyway, so let's start.

So again, let's go back to how did you feel sa debate aftermath.

So how did you feel after the debate and how was the overall experience, fiscal?

After the debate, it was more of a relief than an elation.

So I prepared, let's say, for a week. I researched. I did not take it sitting down.

So I had to prepare because we don't underestimate our opponent.

One thing that people usually, shall we say, yung maling ginagawa nila is they underestimate their opponents.

I don't underestimate my opponents.

Art of war.

Yes. Yes.

That's it. I prepared.

It was quite a tension-building moment leading up to the debate because medyo ma-intimidate ka dahil yung mga adjudicators are retired justices of the Sandigan Bayan.

Tapos it is aired over YouTube and in mainstream media also.

So merong intimidation factor.

And of course, I didn't know who Attorney Libayan is.

Wala akong intelligence report kung gano'n siya kagaling sa trial practice.

All I can observe is his demeanor in his channel.

So yun lang yung pinanghawakan ko.

Although yung advantage ko din is he doesn't know me.

And siguro when he watches your video, your soft-spoken style in creating your videos and not really trying to be flamboyant in any way when you do your content, maybe that's also added up.

I don't know. I don't know.

My content kasi, Sir Comics Man, is designed for students.

So what I do is sinusulat ko lahat sa PowerPoint yung nais kong sabihin tapos binabasa ko na lang.

What I am trying to do is ini-encourage ko yung mga students ko to study by the ear.

So kung wala silang ginagawa, they can just listen to my voice and then they appreciate it because na-absorb nila yung mga sinasabi ko.

So purely supplemental.

Without reading.

Supplemental talaga, yes.

So after class, parang you can go back and listen to the videos and watch it.

So are there any standout moments dun sa whole experience?

How you got convinced?

Mga ganoon from the time na first kang…

Gano'ng katagal kinulit ni Meloy up?

I imagine it took a while, diba?

It took a while to convince me but I also saw the opportunity, Sir Comics Man, to tell our side of the story.

Kasi importante kasi sa akin na malaman ng tao kung ano yung stand natin regarding age of sexual consent.

Yeah. Ano yung mga naaalala mo na mga memorable?

Nothing in particular although yung preparation, yung tension building moment leading up to the debate.

And yung sa debate mismo, on the day of the debate mismo, ang feeling ko kasi is parang naubos na lahat yung kabako.

So pagwala na yung kabako, parang ano na, okay na.

And when the show started, when I saw Atty. Libayan, Atty. Claire Castro and the adjudicators, parang sige, let's go na. This is it.

Nandyan na. Okay.

Yes.

So ano yung moment na, was there any time na parang okay, this is it, parang yung na-convince ka talaga na parang I have to take this challenge,

take it upon myself to heed the call and accept the debate?

Actually, yung intention ko lang at first was yung palitan lang ng kuro-kuro.

Not really in a formal debate type of show but I don't know what led to this situation wherein parang naging formal debate na talaga.

So whether it's a debate or just palitan lang ng kuro-kuro, okay lang din sa akin kahit ano format.

Although, I'm quite satisfied on how the debate was presented. So kudos to DZXL.

Kasi kung tayo-tayo, kung kami-kami lang, malamang di namin magkatagpatan yan.

So I think parang props to them na they got Atty. Claire and DZXL to host the debate.

Tama lang din na mainstream media ang nag-handle.

Tama.

Kasi merong sense of credibility tapos in fairness to Atty. Claire, she did well as a moderator.

I agree. I agree.

So after the debate, how did you celebrate, Fiscal?

After the debate, I felt so hungry and then I told my mother and my family na sige, kumain tayo sa labas.

So nag-celebrate naman talaga kayo.

Yes, we just had dinner and then my mother was in a hurry to get home because she wanted to see the replay of the debate.

Sabi ni Melo nga, parang close na close kayata sa mom mo.

Pero right now, I have a feeling na parang you have become somehow a little bit of a local celebrity.

Kasi may mga photos namin.

Di naman.

At least in your school. I'm sure people watched it in your school.

Yes, yes. The debate was on Sunday, right? So on a Monday, back to school.

How was it?

Days leading to the debate, I was thinking of my students.

Sabi ko, pag natalo ako nito, patay ako sa mga estudyante ko, mawawala ang credibility ko.

So at the back of my mind, they also served as my inspiration to really do my best to perform.

So nasertehan tayo. The verdict was 3-0, unanimous decision.

So I was so excited to go to school kasi parang feeling ko okay na okay ito.

So when I entered the room, I was surprised because they really waited for me and prepared something.

Wow. So you mean to say your students knew about the debate beforehand?

Na parang they were actually looking forward to it?

I didn't actually tell them.

But because they are also YouTube users, so yung fiscal EJ na channel ko, ina-access nila.

So naturally, makikita nila yung tit for tat between me and Atty. Libayan.

So even if they didn't tell me na alam nila yung mga pangyayari, ilabangan nila.

So hindi ka naman kinukulit na, Fiscal, baka na natin yan?

Hindi ka naman ginagana. Nalaman mo na lang after na.

But a week before the debate, doon ko na sinabi sa kanila na I will be competing in a debate between two lawyers in social media.

So you might want to watch because it's a learning experience also for them to see two lawyers arguing their respective cases or positions.

So right now, also I suppose amongst the faculty members din and your colleagues in court.

Yes.

So I'm sure they're very happy.

They were very happy. They all congratulated me during the flag ceremony.

They announced the fact that I won.

My judges were very elated also.

My colleagues in the profession, my co-faculty members, they all celebrated.

And even with my friends in Cebu because I am a native of Cebu.

So I have also lawyer friends there. They were watching.

Okay. So now going back to the debate.

So how did you feel when the justices rendered their verdict?

So isa-isa, one. Ako binibilang ko isa, dalawa, tatlo.

To be honest, I didn't feel anything except the fact that I just want to get it finished.

Parang sige lang, mag-verdict na kayo.

But at the back of my mind, I had this, let's say, how do I call this?

Parang feeling ba na baka nakuha ko yung favor ng mga judges because of the evidence that I was able to present.

Kasi hindi lang jurisprudence yung binigay ko na evidence.

Ibat-ibang evidence yung prinesenta ko like yung sa mga UN conventions, yung batas mismo.

And I think I was able to articulate what I wanted to convey to the judges

because ang goal kasi ng debate is you should convince your judges that you had a better case.

Yes. And then how, after debating Atty. Libayan, how would you rate him as a debate competitor?

How do I rate him? I don't want to say anything for or against Atty. Libayan because that might be interpreted.

I see.

I want to avoid it.

Okay. I respect that.

And so you were able to say everything that you wanted or meron ka pa ba saan? Kasi limited lang yung oras, diba?

Siguro yung sa closing speech lang na hindi ko natapos but I think mga isang paragraph na lang yun na hindi ko nabasa.

Even if I was cut off, parang nakuha ko lahat yung gusto kong sabihin na rin.

Especially nung I was talking about my daughter who was beside me all the time during the debate

because she was assisting me in the technicalities of the laptop.

Just in case may ma-press ako na keep, ano ba, accidentally ma-press ko, she's there to assist me.

Yeah. I see.

But then after the debate, parang you posted, hindi ka muna nag-post. You posted nothing.

And then the day after, I think, parang you posted a short thank you, diba?

And nabanggit mo nga ako yung natuwa.

So you are very welcome, Fiscal EJ, when you mentioned me and I'm sure the rest of the gang.

Ang palayagang na sinasabi ni Antonio Libayan na siya naman talagang pinakamalaking ampalaya sa lahat.

Anyway, speaking of ampalaya, kasi ngayon you were very gracious, you were very humble, you were very stoic in your after-debate message, diba?

You just said, tapos na, nasabi mo na lahat ng kailangan mong sabihin sa debate and then you were ready to move forward.

But then again, the other side, I don't know.

You just watched it and it seems like ibang iba.

Kasi nga, yung sabi mo kanina, you don't want to say anything na makakabisit pa rin.

So I'm gonna do the same. I'm gonna try to avoid the incendiary comments from now on.

Diba? Pero hindi katulad nung the same graciousness that you showed is not the reaction that the other side is doing.

So what can you say about that?

I can understand their feelings na natalo si Antonio Libayan.

Especially if for a long time no one challenged Antonio Libayan's beliefs.

Iniintindi ko na lang kahit na binabash na nila ako sa mga comment section.

Okay lang kasi that's part of social media.

When I entered this REM, I already expected na merong mangyayarin ganito.

You just have to stretch your patience and iniignore mo na lang.

Because nothing can hurt you if you ignore.

Yeah.

Alam mo, Sir Comicsman, I've been a prosecutor for 13 years.

And there have been times that I have received death threats.

So kung kinaya ko yung death threats, yung safety ko.

Parang minsan hindi siya sigurado.

How much more sa ganitong social media bashing lang?

Walang effect sa akin yan? Iniignore ko yan?

Oo nga.

There's a world outside YouTube for me.

So even without YouTube, I am still the same.

Erwin James, Badaios Fabriga, a father, a prosecutor, a husband.

So nothing's changed.

Yes.

Okay, just a little bit more na lang about the debate.

For people who are not really, kasi there's a lot of jargon, legal jargon that was said in the articles,

mga RA numbers and jurisprudence that was said.

In layman's terms, can you explain lang kung maintindihan ng mga simpleng tao kung ano yung naging argument mo talaga?

And why Atty. Libayan was wrong?

Yung pinagdedebatehan lang kasi sa AOSC, for my part, is kung ano yung nakasaad o ano yung nakalagay sa batas.

Kung 16 ba or 18.

So ano ba yung sexual consent?

Yung sexual consent is meron bang karapatan ang isang minority edad na magbigay pa hintulot na makipag-sex siya sa isang tao

na yung tao walang magiging criminal liability.

And then binibigyan din ng recognition ng batas ang isang minority edad na at that certain age,

kaya na niya na mag-decide para sa sarili niya kung papasok pa siya sa isang seksual na relasyon.

And based on international standards and also based on the recommendation ng mga eksperto,

nakita nila na when you reach the age of 16,

you are mature enough to decide for yourself insofar as engaging in sexual activities is concerned.

So yun yung essence ng sexual consent.

And based on law, RA 11648, 16 talaga.

And yung contention?

Yes. Ang ibig ko sabihin niyan Sir Comixman is when a minor reaches the age of 16,

pag naging 16 na siya, pwede na siyang magbigay pa hintulot.

Pag below 16 pa siya, iniisip ng batas na wala pa siya sa insaktong maturity na pumasok sa isang seksual na relasyon.

So kahit na ginustupan niyang makipagtalik sa isang tao dahil below 16 years old siya,

yung sexual partner niya is magiging criminally liable generally for statutory rape.

Sa mata ng batas.

Sa mata ng batas, yes.

Sorry for my Tagalog Sir Comixman, hindi ako masyadong makapag-ano.

Medyo iniisip ko pa kung ano yung translation ng English word sa Tagalog.

Okay lang kahit mag-English ka.

Basta, basta, bahala.

Whatever is more comfortable with you fiscal.

Kasi naiintindihan naman ng mga tao.

And also yung mga hindi rin magaling mag-Tagalog, so mas okay din.

Pero yung contention ni Atty. Libaya na 18, in layman's term, ano yung basihan niya sa pagkakabase doon sa mga sinabi niya?

Yung basihan niya sa 18 is yung RA 7610 na dinefined kasi sa RA 7610 ng isang bata na below 18

Or kahit 18 pataas na, kung mentally or physically incapacitated siya, hindi niya kayang mag-support sa kanyang sarili, that person will still be considered a child.

But generally, ang ibig niya sasabihin is pag below 18 ka, based on RA 7610, you are considered a child.

And then aside from that, mayroon kasing lumabas na Supreme Court case yung Malto tapos yung Udang, yung latest yung Udang.

Sabi kasi doon sa Udang na pag below 18 ang tao o pag minor siya o kung bata siya, wala talaga siyang karapatan to give sexual consent.

Yun yung sinasabi sa Udang.

Although my contention is it was already junked by the Supreme Court in the case of Tulagan.

Merong bagong Supreme Court decision na lumabas tapos sabi ng Supreme Court sa Tulagan case na masyadong sweeping or masyadong confusing yung sinabi ng Supreme Court doon sa Udang case.

Hindi pwede na sweeping na lahat na lang, in all instances na lang, hindi pwede magbigay pahintulot ang isang bata to a sexual act.

I see. So basically, hindi na parang pasuna yung ginagamit ni Atty. Libayan.

Based on my position, yes.

Kasi nga, masyadong malawak yung...

Ang mangyayari kasi sir Comixman is if you make that as a rule, lahat na lang ng sexual activity by a minor is considered as a crime.

Magiging rape na lahat. Yes.

Okay. And the law, the wisdom of the law, parang wanted to prevent that. Kasi kung yun ang ia-uphold.

It will create para sa akin, it will create more trouble putting in prison couples.

Like for example, 17 yung babae tapos 19 years old lang yung lalaki.

When we're young, may mga naging syota tayo na 17 years bata sa atin and then normal yan magtalik sila.

So yan ang piniprevent ng batas na hindi pwedeng lahat na lang ng pagtatalik gagawin mong isang crimen.

Kasi meron talagang mga relasyon na nagmamahalan yung tao, yung couple.

Is that somehow a little bit like the Romeo and Juliet law na sinasabi?

Yes.

Kasi parang yung Romeo and Juliet na pag in-explain yun ng mga naririnig ko,

nagko-compute lang sila kung ilang yung bilang ng age na pwede at hindi.

Pero para sa akin, ang essence nun is to protect.

Galing nga dun sa Romeo and Juliet.

Ang kwento ng Romeo and Juliet ni Shakespeare, si Romeo and Juliet nagmamahalan sila pero yung mga magulang nila hadlang sa pagmamahalan nila.

Kaya ayaw nilang pabayaan sila.

Nangyayari naman yun sa tunay na buhay.

So kung let's say yung boyfriend ng anak mo na minor ay hindi mo gusto,

tapos nalaman mong nagtalik sila na mag-shota nga sila.

Tapos itong lalaki ay 19 ka na, papakulong kita.

Pwede mong i-abuse mo yun like that.

Yung Romeo and Juliet rule, Sir Comicsman, is pag 16 na yung babae, yung minority edad,

pag naging 16 na siya and then she engages in a relationship with a 19 or 20-year-old man,

hindi na mag-a-apply yung Romeo and Juliet rule kasi 16 na siya.

Mag-a-apply lang yung Romeo and Juliet rule pag below 16 yung minor.

Ah, I see.

So pag below 16 yung minor, di ba?

Ang general rule is pag below 16 ka,

pag nakipagtali ka sa isang below 16 na minority edad, magiging criminally liable ka for statutory rape.

But because of the Romeo and Juliet rule,

wala kang criminal liability pag ikaw at minority edad ng Catholic mo,

yung age difference niyo hindi lalagpas ng 3 years.

Tapos consensual yung sex, meaning nagbigay talaga ng pahintulot yung below 16 years old na babae.

Tapos non-abusive and non-exploitative.

So if those elements are present,

walang magiging criminal liability yung sexual partner nung below 16 years old.

Kasi I think tama nga yung naging pag-ja-junk dun sa udang.

Kasi kung lahat na lang na mag-sesex na couple,

Maraming, yes, maraming makukulong.

Makukulong, masasayang yung buhay ng mga bata, di ba?

Can you just imagine, automatic na magiging rape yung below 18?

At saka sino yung na-rape? Yung babae o lalaking parehas?

Ewan ko, ang gulo niya.

Actually, yes, tama.

Tapos gender free na yung RA 11648, kahit sino.

Anyway, but then again,

the adjudicators were convinced in your arguments

and awarded you a 3-0 unanimous decision.

So again, congratulations Fiscal PJ.

Let's go back. Let's go to a different topic naman.

Baka medyo mahaba-haba pato.

I hope you have, parang okay naman sa'yo, sana.

Depende.

Sige, depende.

Bilisan na lang natin yung iba, yung mga i-skim through na lang natin.

Can you just give me a little personal background about yourself?

Napag-usapan natin yung iba dito with Melo.

Kasi you are a prosecutor in Ormoc.

How was life before Fiscal EJ got into this mess?

I was just living a normal lawyer life.

A government lawyer.

Very ordinary life.

Normal routines lang.

Papasok sa trabaho, papasok sa school,

taking care of the family.

So, yun lang.

Wala talagang extraordinary activity na ang ginagawa ko.

Masyado kasing broad, Sir Comixman, yung tanong mo na personal background.

You could probably break it down in specifics.

How about yung law school life?

Did you always wanted to be a lawyer?

And how was law school?

Masalimut kasi yung law school life ko, Sir Comixman,

because masakitin akong tao.

I was a sickly person.

I underwent a total of six major operations already.

Medical operations.

So, people don't know that.

People like you don't know that.

Naglipat-lipat ako ng school.

And then I also had to stop schooling because of my physical disability.

So, hindi masyadong smooth sailing yung law school life ko.

But with perseverance, I finished law school, took the bar, and then the rest is history.

Kailan ka naging prosecutor?

I became a prosecutor in 2010.

So, mga 13 years na ako.

So, everyday sa courtroom.

Before, nag-POW ka din or private?

Nag-POW ako for two years.

After I passed the bar, pumasok agad ako sa government, sa POW.

I became a public defender, a public attorney, opposite sa trabaho ng mga fiskal.

So, after that, I became a prosecutor.

After that, I transferred in the judiciary.

Naging branch clerk of court ako for four years.

And then I decided to apply in the prosecution service in 2009.

And then in 2010, naging fiskal na.

Yung fiskal, ano?

Yung bang fiskal, is there?

Ako kasi wala akong idea talaga din sa judiciary system ng Pilipinas.

And I'm sure yung iba, hindi rin nila alam.

Sa good side, tatanong ko.

They might pretend, but I don't know.

Yung bang fiskal, meron bang hierarchy ng mga abogado from simple lawyer to Supreme Court judge?

May ganun ba?

We have to, siguro, make a distinction between private lawyering and government lawyering.

Sa private lawyering, wala namang distinction.

Wala namang hierarchy kasi when you are a private practitioner, equal lang.

Depende na sa reputation mo or seniority.

Kung magaling kang abogado sa trial practice, your colleagues will accord you that kind of respect.

Pero basically, walang ranking in private lawyering.

Pero in government lawyering, meron.

Meron mga positions na fini-fill up sa government.

For example, sa amin sa prosecution service, meron kami prosecutor general.

Below the prosecutor general, yung mga regional prosecutors, provincial prosecutors, city prosecutors.

In the province, for example, we have one provincial prosecutor, a chief.

Then the rest are assistant provincial prosecutors.

Sa city naman, meron chief prosecutor.

Meron siyang mga subordinates na mga abogado rin, mga fiscal rin pero below in rank than the chief.

Ang dami palang prosecutor.

Yes. Marami. Kulang pa nga dahil sa dami ng kaso.

I didn't know that.

Kasi parang sundalo.

May mga ranggo-ranggo.

And then again, yung judge, saan papasok yung judge?

Yung judge, nasa third branch of government siya sa judicial branch of government.

Yung judicial branch is headed by the Supreme Court, yung pinakamataas.

Below it, ang tawag dun, hierarchy of courts.

Pinakamataas, Supreme Court and then sa baba niya is Court of Appeals.

And then regional trial courts and then yung mga municipal trial courts.

Sa apat na level.

O nga, kasi I remember dun sa live stream ni Melo, you said, kinagulat ko rin,

na parang DOJ nga pala yung prosecutor, yung mga power sa prosecutor.

Tapos yung courts, sa judicial system na hindi na siya sa executive branch.

Mas naintindihan ko na ngayon.

So basically kayo yung abogado ng gobyerno?

Kami yung abogado ng state, yes, ng people of the Philippines.

And the judges are?

The judges are under the Supreme Court.

Sa kanila, fina-file yung kaso.

Tapos sila yung mag-hear and decide the case.

Kami yung mag-prove ng kaso namin.

Tapos sila yung mag-decide kung dapat bang i-convict or i-acquit or i-dismiss ang criminal case, for example.

Another, medyo hindi ko kayang i-articulate right now pero parang nag-gets ko na.

It's parang separate entity talaga yung judicial system, judicial branch.

Tapos parang kayo, mga prosecutors are parang provision ng gobyerno.

Can you say it like that?

Para sa mga tao pag nakakaso.

Pardon? Kami yung ano?

Parang provision. Okay, kailangan mo ng abogado.

Yung criminal cases should always be prosecuted on behalf of the state kasi yung state ang complainant, yung gobyerno.

Let's say Maria, a rape victim, files a case for rape against her rapist.

So pag sa tingin namin may probable cause, may evidencia talaga na nagkasala yung rapist, ipa-file namin yung kaso sa court.

So yung kaso na ipa-file namin sa court in the name of the government.

Kaya ang tawag doon, people of the Philippines against the accused, let's say Juan de la Cruz.

So since the case is filed in the name of the government, people of the Philippines, as the representative of the government, kami yung mag-prosecute.

Kami yung mag-prove na meron talagang pagkakasala si rapist. Kaya dapat siyang ikulong.

So ang magiging kaso doon is rapist versus people of the Philippines?

Yes, people of the Philippines versus the accused. Ang tawag doon sa inihahabla is akusado, accused.

Yung victim, si Maria for example, she is the private complainant but hindi siya talaga ang complainant kasi yung complainant is yung government.

Private complaining witness na lang siya.

Bakit ganon ang pagkatrato?

Because ang crime kasi is considered as an offense against the state.

Yung bawat crimen, kinoconsider yan as isang offense laban sa estado.

I see.

Pag nag-commit ka ng crime, parang ang whole arm of government, yun na yung kalaban mo.

Kasi yung nagkasala ka sa gobyerno, kaya yung gobyerno ang mag-reklamo.

Mag-usig sa'yo.

At yung actual na na-rape, siyempre kasalanan.

Victim siya.

Okay, I see.

She's considered a victim.

Siya yung pinuprotektahan ng estado.

I see. I get it.

Yung victim, siya ang pinuprotektahan ng government but because there is due process, kailangang litisin.

Hindi pwedeng ikulong agad.

I see.

Okay, Fiskal. Ito kasi isa pang nakikita natin lagi doon sa YouTube.

I think parang nagiging problema na rin.

Yung tungkol sa mga hearing.

Merong congressional hearing, may senate hearing, may court hearing.

And sometimes parang pag nakikinig ka ng mga nagsasalita sa YouTube,

hindi na ma-distinguish ng mga tao kung ano ba talaga.

Parang ina-apply nila yung mga hearings.

Hindi na nila alam kung paano i-distinguish yung mga hearings.

Can you tell us clear things out about anong difference ng senate hearing, congressional hearing,

at saka kung may ilba pang hearings dyan, or court hearing, whatever?

Yung mga court hearings, Sir Comixman, is dalawang klase yun.

Usually, civil case at criminal cases yung nililitis doon sa judiciary, sa third branch ng government.

So mga actual cases yun ang mga tao.

So in the case of criminal cases, what is at stake there is the liberty of the accused.

Kasi pag napatunayan na nagkasala ka, then you will be deprived of your liberty.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

So mabigat yan na pag may criminal case ka, there's the danger there na makukulong ka.

Pag napatunayan na nagkasala ka.

So there are actual cases.

Yung civil cases naman, it doesn't involve crimes but it involves the private rights of people.

Like for example, si Juan nagkautang kay Maria, tapos hindi binayaran ni Juan.

Tapos dumating na yung araw na dapat bayaran ni Juan, hindi pa rin siya nagbayad.

Maria now has the right to file a civil case against Juan for collection of the utang.

So civil case yun.

It involves mere private rights of parties that are being violated under our civil laws.

Yung congressional hearings naman, whether they are of the Senate or of the House,

they are actually hearings only in aid of legislation.

Hindi yung hearings na katulad ng nasa korte.

Can you explain that?

Anong ibig sabihin ng in aid of legislation na hearing?

Kasi yung function ng Congress is to create laws, promulgate laws.

So before they promulgate laws, one of their functions is to conduct inquiries

to determine what law is appropriate for this particular problem.

Kaya nga ang tawag in aid of legislation.

Ano yung mga pwede mong gawin sa isang congressional hearing na hindi ginagawa or sa court hearings?

To avoid confusion.

Kasi parang yung sinasabi ng ibang mga nagsasalita sa YouTube,

parang hindi naman ang kupyon dun sa congressional o sa Senate hearing kunyari.

Parang gumagamit ka ng mga bagay-bagay na pang court hearing.

Ewan ko ah.

Can you be more particular, Sir Comixman?

Ano yung ibig mo ipunto dun?

Like let's say yung mga mag-o-object ka dahil kunyari hearsay yung sinasabi ng isang witness dun sa

o kaya yung isang inimbitahan dun sa congressional hearing na parang hindi mo dapat tanongin yan.

Hindi mo dapat pakinggan yan dahil hearsay lang yan.

Kasi parang sinasabi, parang sa korte daw kung hearsay ka, i-dismiss ka.

Ewan ko lang. To be honest with you Sir Comixman, I'm not so familiar with the Senate Rules of Procedure

kasi kada government agency kasi especially yung Senate or House,

meron silang internal rules of procedure na finafollow nila.

For a while, nawala ako.

Meron silang internal rules of procedure na finafollow nila.

Tapos dun sa rules of procedure na andun, andun din yung mga paluntunan kung ano yung mga ebidensya na pwedeng tanggapin o hindi.

So unfortunately, I am not that familiar with the Senate Rules.

But in general, kung wala ka naman sa korte, parang hindi naman dapat stringent yung application ng hearsay evidence kasi hindi naman korte yung Senate.

Kaya nga.

Pwede naman kahit anong information na pwedeng ma-receive ng isang congressman or senator na relevant dun sa iniimbestigahan nila in aid of legislation,

pwede rin yung tanggapin kasi hindi naman korte yung Senate.

Hindi naman silang mag-rule kung nagkasala yung tao o hindi.

Ang goal nila is... Ano ang goal nila, Fiscal?

Ang goal nila is to determine what is the appropriate legislation that they can recommend or meron bang, let's say there is already an existing law,

tapos sa tingin nila meron dapat i-amend dito sa existing law, they will conduct hearings in aid of legislation to further determine kung ano yung problema.

Hindi naman ang existing law na pwede nilang magawa ng paraan para ma-amend nila yung batas.

Kung meron issue na nangyari tapos ang tingin ng mga senator or congressman meron silang nakitang problema na tingin nila baka may mga batas na hindi...

Minsan kasi parang nakakita ka ng isang tingin mo mali tapos hindi mo naman maalaman kung anong ikakaso mo.

Parang ganoon ba yun? Diba parang teka, hindi ko alam kung anong ikakaso.

Pero alam ko, nare-recognize ko na may mali siyang ginawa.

Pero hindi ko ma-pinpoint kung ano sa batas ang dapat kong ikaso dito.

So mag-hearing tayo. Ganoon ba yun, Fiscal?

Yes. You hit the nail on its head so to speak. Meron mga aspeto sa batas na hindi pa covered. Meron mga human acts na hindi pa covered sa batas.

So pag meron nakitang situation na parang it's quite unclear kung mag-a-apply ba yung batas, isang-isang reason din yun na pwedeng magpatawag ng hearing in aid of legislation yung mga congressman at senators natin.

O kaya parang, let's say, tingin nila may batas na pero yung parusa parang hindi sapat or sobrang.

So yun yung mga detaly na pwede mong pagdebatehan.

Like for example, yung death penalty. Before we had a death penalty law in 2006 pursuant to RA 9346, inabolish yung death penalty.

Meaning, prohibit yung imposition ng death penalty under RA 9346 kasi nakita ng mga mga mga batas na hindi siya effective na remedy to curb crime.

So before RA 9346 was passed into law, nag-conduct muna sila ng mga hearings in aid of legislation to determine kung dapat ba talagang hindi na i-impose yung death penalty.

E kasi ang nangyayari, parang ang pinapalabas ng ibang mga commentators is the senators and congressmen do this as a waste of time and just for them to grandstand.

Well, it's an opportunity to grandstand for sure. Pero do you think lahat na lang kailangan i-apply yung ganoon na parang hindi kailangan yan?

Parang ganoon kasing nagiging impression sa mga tao. Dahil sinasabi mo, parang walang kwenta yung Senate hearings, parang tingin nila hindi nila nakikita yung pagiging essential nun for our laws and government to function.

It's a matter of perception kasi sir Comixman. On my part, hindi ko masyadong tinitingnan yan as grandstanding. Kahit na siguro may mga ilan na nag-grandstand, the greater good remains.

That is a hearing in aid of legislation. So at the end of the day, meron pa rin magandang resulta sa mga ganyang klaseng investigations kasi for example may-expose yung mga pagkukulang sa batas.

Although minsan lang, nagiging sensationalism na rin. But I think the good outweighs the bad.

And siguro ang gusto kong itanong is, how important do you think our Senate hearings in aid of legislation to government?

Government is so vast kasi sir Comixman. Hindi ko ma-quantify yung importance niya. But it is, let's say ano na lang, yung hearings in aid of legislation whether of the House or Senate, important yan for the purpose of crafting laws in the legislative branch of government.

Kasi yung Senate at saka yung House, they belong to the second branch, the so-called legislative branch of government. Tapos yung judiciary, judicial branch, tapos yung executive headed by the President is called the executive branch.

Oo. Di ba yung tatlong branches, legislative.

Merong checks and balances doon.

Yon. Teka, may mga tanong ako dito. Medyo tingin ko parang ano natin yung ibang tanong ko dito. What determines the need for a law?

Ito na lang. Lagi nating naririnig yung salitang ito sa mga YouTube lawyers. Ano ba talaga yung jurisprudence? I'm gonna ask the stupid questions na walang lakas ng loob yung ibang mga tao kasi feeling nila tanga sila pag tinanong nila kung ano ito.

Ano yung jurisprudence? Ano ba yun exactly? May iba pang klase ng mga batas? Are there different kinds of laws?

Yung jurisprudence from what I understand is it is a decision of the Supreme Court which has become final. So yes, yun yung parang general meaning ng jurisprudence.

Pag jurisprudence na, you can already use that. For example when a similar case crops up and then this particular case which has become jurisprudence is applicable to your case, then you can already use that to convince the court to your side kasi may jurisprudence na.

So it is created na a precedent. So ang purpose ng jurisprudence is to create a precedent na ang Supreme Court mayroon ng decision ukol dito. So ito dapat ang ifollow ng judge na nag-hear ng kaso mo.

So in short, if the same crime was committed, mayroon ng decision para doon sa crime na yun na pwede niyayari.

It will reinforce your position na ito ang dapat sundin ng korte na didinig ng kaso mo kasi mayroon ng decision dito ang Supreme Court. Ito yung dapat sundin ng judge.

Kasi parang problema nga naman kung same kayo ng kaso nang nangyari tapos iba yung ngatol.

Tama.

So yun yung jurisprudence. But are there different kinds of laws? Kasi madami.

Yes, marami.

Mayroon mga parang proclamation, may mga ganyan. RA, ano bang pinagkaiba ng mga yan?

Ano nalang, yung RAs kasi depende kung anong... How do I say this? Sa time ni Marcos kasi, for example yung father ni BBM, we were under martial law.

He was given power under the 1973 Constitution to also promulgate or make laws. Kasi yung system of government natin, yung gumagawa ng batas sa Congress lang.

During the time of President Marcos, because the Constitution was changed, the Constitution itself allowed the President to also make laws.

Tapos ang tawag ng mga laws na ginagawa ni President Marcos at the time was via presidential decrees. Batas din yan.

Tapos yung tawag sa Congress nun is batasang pambansa. Kaya ngayon meron pang mga laws galing sa time na yan. Ang tawag ng mga laws nun is BP, like BP-22.

Pag nag-issue ka ng cheque na walang laman, nag-violate ka ng BP-22. So it was a law enacted during the time when Congress was still called batasang pambansa.

Tapos yung mga presidential decrees, they are laws crafted by President Marcos himself or by his consultants.

So right now wala na presidential decrees kasi wala na yung panahon na yan.

Yes. Wala na na yung mga BP. So what remains now is yung mga Republic Acts na lang.

But then again, those decrees are still recognized right now.

They are still effective. They are still enforced unless they have been amended by another law.

I see. Okay. Kasi kahit wala na yung panahon ni Marcos, ano pa rin siya. Kahit ano na yung government niya, napalitan ng bago.

I see. Okay. So madaming ano. Siguro i-research na lang natin isa-isa. Maybe you can do contents about that.

Masyadong mahaba siguro pag inisa-isa natin. So mga content creators na lawyers, di ba ako matutuwa ako malaman.

Ang daming pwedeng i-discuss sa batas. So dapat siguro mas maraming content creators na lawyers na magdi-discuss ng batas.

Ako nga, yung dini-discuss ko is aspect lang ng criminal law. Meron pang civil law. Meron pang taxation law.

Ang daming pwedeng i-discuss sa batas na hindi lang specific na batas ang i-discuss mo.

Kaso yung views na kay Tulfo. Anyway, anyway.

Wala akong...

Mamaya yun. Mamaya yun. So yung isa pang di ko alam kung misconception to about laws.

Pero may mga naririnig kasi ako na sa internet at minsan aling asgas lang akong kadi kanino is

yung mga batas daw could still be subject for interpretation. Parang flexible ba ang mga batas na pwede mong i-interpret?

Kasi parang sa isang kaso, dalawang abogado maglalaban dyan. Parang they would have different interpretations of the law. So how does that work?

Ang mag-interpret lang talaga ng batas.

Thank you for watching!