#philippinelaw #criminallaw #libel #constitutionallaw #raffytulfo #raffytulfoinaction #senate #senateofthephilippines Topics: 1. Legislative power: Inquiries/investigations in aid of legislation 2. Right to counsel 3. Right against self-incrimination 4. Privilege of speech and debate 5. Absolutely privileged communication *Images and video clips not mine. Ctto.

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

Do not ask me, I'm asking you, yes or no only. That's a very categorical question.

Same with Justice Baldos, I vote for the in favor of the negative because it is very clearly provided under such a law that a 16-year-old can give all the consent in sexual activity.

I am inclined to claim that if it is the age of 16, it is the age of sexual consent and therefore I give it to the negative side.

Categorically stated there that the age of sexual consent is 16, the official statement of the Senate will bind me as a judge.

There being no other sources to draw an answer from.

That the age of consent is 16.

Ito po si Fiscal EJ at your service.

Good day po sa lahat.

Bago po ako magbibigay ng komento, manood muna tayo ng clips sa nangyaring Senate investigation sa mga pulis na nakabonet habang nagsiserve ng warrant.

Today, mapapatunayan ko na saksakan ng pagkasinungaling yung mga pulis na inakusa.

Dito ipapakita ko sa iyo Mr. Chair na walang respeto sa iyo ang mga ito bilang dating PNP Chief.

At bilang Chairman ng Komite na ito.

At walang respeto itong tatlo sa Senado.

Ginagawa niya pong katatawanan nitong tatlo.

Ang Senado, ang Komite po ninyo at maging kayo po kasama rin po ako doon.

Patutunayan ko sa inyong tatlo na napakasinungaling nyo.

At modus operandi na ng tatlong

Gusto ko na mapamuna Mr. Chair.

Meron pa akong mga testigo na modus operandi na nitong tatlo na pumasok ng bahay ng may bahay ng walang dalang warrant base lamang sa sabi ng asset at mang aresto ng kung sino-sinong taong gusto nila.

And wearing bonnets.

Not wearing proper uniform.

Ang masama.

Ang mga kasinito kinukonsinti.

In fact, when I interviewed the Chief of Police at that time, and I think the Chief of Police was already relieved.

And what was the name of that Chief of Police?

Is he here?

And I interviewed the last time sa radio program ko.

Sabi mo, isa ka pa, Colonel.

Sabi ko, Colonel, bakit nagbobonnet ang mga bata mo pag nag-raid?

Kasi mainit dito sa Bulacan.

Pati ako nga nagbobon.

Don't lie to me.

Pagpakontem kita, magsumpa ka muna rito bago mo kasagutin.

Put him on the road.

Colonel, during the last, when I interviewed you sa radio program ko, tinanong kita,

bakit nagbobonnet yung tao ninyo?

Pakisagot nga ulit kung consistent ka.

Yes, sir.

Ang tanong na bakit, sir, ay hindi ko matandaan yan, sir.

Kung hindi, ang tanong mo sa akin, sir, ay,

tama ba na magbonnet yung mga polis mo pagka sa mag-perform ng duty o mag-manghuli?

Parang ganun, sir, yung natatandaan ko.

And then, sinagot ko yan, sir, ng hindi, sir.

And then, sir, may pahabol ako doon dahil may pinahabol pa kayo na pwede din naman provide...

Stop right there. You said hindi.

Pakiredy yung video na uhuli ka.

You said hindi.

Yes, sir.

Pakiredy yung video.

Okay. And then, go ahead.

Yes, sir.

And then, sir, sabi ko, pwede din naman provided na pagdating mo sa area is magpakita ka ng mukha mo,

itaas mo, yung bonnet mo kung may bonnet ka, at magpakilala ka as...

No, sir. Yes, that was later on.

Pero ang una mong sinabi, mainit kasi sa bulakan, kaya nagbobonnet kayo, maging ikaw, nagbobonnet ka nga.

Yun yung straight answer mo.

And then, dumugtong ako ng tanong, saka sumagot.

Masama kung nakataas, kung nakababa, dapat nakataas.

Dapat, Colonel, ang diretsyong sagot agad mo doon, bawal ang bonnet.

Stop na. Wala na yung mainit.

At ako nga nagbobonnet.

Ginagaw mong kenkoy ang PNP.

Do not use the word mainit, kaya ka magbobonnet.

Ito naman yung verbal exchange between Senator Raffi and Secretary Herbosa ng Department of Health

with respect to the issue about medical junket na isang posibleng rason

kung bakit mas preferred na mga doktor ang branded over generic medicines.

Doc, were you born yesterday?

Hindi po. Alam ko yan. Nangyayari yung junket nung araw.

Pero sinasabi ko po ngayon.

No, Doc. Ngayon nangyayari.

You want me to prove?

Doc, please don't laugh. This is a serious matter.

Even while we speak, sir. Even while we speak.

May mga nakischedule na po punta sa US, sa Canada, sa Australia, kung saan saan bansa.

Doc, let me finish.

Another observation that I had in the past.

Bakit po?

Bakit po sa mga ospital, ang mga gamot ay mamahal?

Especially po when it comes to inpatient.

So hindi po nabibigyan ng option ang pasyente kung ano ibibigay sa kanila.

Yun na lang po talaga ang tatanggapin nila.

At bakit po branded?

Dapat po pag sa mga public hospitals, habang maari, dapat yung mga gamot na kine-carry po ay generic.

Do you agree with me, Doc?

Kasi most of the patients that go to the public hospitals are poor.

So why give them branded medicines?

Agree po.

Usually po, ang procurement of medicines in public hospitals is by public bidding, 91-84.

At kuminsan, ang nananalo po ay yung branded.

But most of the time, alam ko, generic ang mas mura.

Kaya nga po, Doc, so bakit nyo ipapayaga mag-bid pala itong mga branded kung sila'y mamahal?

I'll give you an example, Doc.

Tramadol.

This is a pain medication if I'm not mistaken, right?

Yung branded, P128.50.

Yung generic, P9.75.

You see the big difference, Secretary?

Existing na po yung executive order on the use of Philippine National Drug Formula or generic drugs sa public hospitals.

Only reason I can give as a doctor, because there are cases, nung nagpa-practice po ako, may cases na generic ang binili ng hospital, pero hindi siya clinically effective.

You said may clinical studies.

Na mas effective ang branded kaysa generic.

Can I see those clinical studies?

They're the same.

As long as the bioequivalence and bioavailabilities are the same.

So yun ang problema.

Tama naman, generics and branded should be the same.

However, may manufacturing, merong...

Yung iba, nandadaya.

Meron pong ganon.

Nandadaya yung percentage.

Gagawin 90% lang.

So yung efficacy, kitang-kita ng doktor.

Hindi ko nawawala yung pain ko.

Secretary?

Kung ganon pala, meron kayo mga findings, clinical studies, na halimbawa yung isang particular gamot, hindi siya effective kumpara sa isang branded.

Dapat meron kayo mga listahan na yan.

And the public should be informed.

And through the FDA.

Di ho ba?

Yan po yung sagot sa tanong nyo.

Hindi yung kayo lang po nakakaalam noon.

Mr. Chair, yan po yung sagot sa tanong nyo kung bakit may mga branded sa public hospitals.

Kasi ibig sabihin nun, baka previously, the previous year, yung supplier hindi maganda.

Hindi lang po sa mga iniinanak.

Yung mga premium na gamot, sometimes sa anesthetics, may nakikita ganito, tinurok, hindi nagka-anesthesia.

So the next year, hindi nabibili nun.

So for safety, kuminsan bumibili po yung public hospital noong branded.

So yan.

I'm not saying you're lying, pero I'm saying na half-truth yung mga sinasabi ninyo.

I'll tell you why, bakit piniprefer yung branded sa mga hospital, sa mga pharmacy, bakit inireseta.

Kasi nga po, may tinatawag na junket.

Alam niyo po yun.

Yung mga doktor, ginugood tayo.

Mag-gugood tayo ng mga pharmaceutical companies sa mga seminar, sa mga abroad, schooling, free airfare, business class, hotel accommodation, food, entertainment, etc.

And we're talking about the millions of pesos or even dollars.

Now, syempre, itong mga pharmaceutical companies, hindi ito manlilibre, magugood tayo ng mga doktor nang walang kapalit.

What's in it for us?

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Ganun po yun.

Kaya itong mga doktor, mag-ireseta sila ng mga branded.

Kasi yun lang.

Yung generic na nagugood time sa kanila, yung generic na hindi nagugood time sa kanila, hindi nilalireseta.

You follow me, Doc? Sir?

Meron po tayong tinatawag, Mr. Chair, na Mexico Protocol and the Philippines follows this professionally.

All professional organizations are supposed to not accept yung ganitong gifts from the pharmaceutical industry based on the Mexico Protocol.

At tayo po ay signatory and all professionals are expected to do so.

Okay.

Kung meron pong makitaan na ganitong halaman, kinakasuhan po yung pharmaceutical companies.

Pharmaceutical company.

At pinapenalize sila.

This practice violates the code of ethics of the medical profession for doctors because, number one, it affects their autonomy in giving the best and most affordable healthcare to patients.

Number two, in a way exploits patients for the doctor's personal gain.

Number three, does not improve access to equitable healthcare.

Now, Doc, you're saying na wala na itong childcare?

Agree po. Kaya pwede pong kasuhan.

Even when we speak, may mga naka-schedule na po punta sa US, sa Canada, sa Australia, kung saan saan bansa.

And I can prove this from doctors.

May mga doktor po ako nagsusumbong sa akin.

Siyempre, yung mga pharmaceutical companies, kailangan nilang kumita din, bumawi.

Tataasan nila yung presyon mga gamot nila.

And that's the reason bakit itong mga doktor, hindi naman po lahat na mag-i-issue silang reseta, mag-reseta silang gamot sa kanyang mga pasyente without putting the generic equivalent.

It is your job dyan sa DOH para to find out bakit nangyayari pa rin ito.

At kung nangyayari ito, then sampah kayo ng kaso.

Meron ba na sampah ng kaso?

Wala.

Pwede bang mabigyan mo ng listahan or pwede maimbestigahan?

I don't know. Discard nyo po ito.

Yung sinasabi nyo, very interested po ako doon.

Yung may mga generic na gamot, sabi nyo, hindi po effective compared doon sa gamot na branded.

So the public should be informed.

We should, no? Para iwasan na po yung publiko yun.

I-bili nang bili yung mga mahihirap ng kababayan nang sabi nyo nga po hindi pala effective, nasasayang lang yung pera.

So yung mga ganong klaseng mga manufacture ng mga generic, eh dapat maimbestigahan o dapat makasuhan kung sino-shortchange nila yung pagmamanufacture ng mga gamot na ang mga bumibili mahihirap.

Has something been done?

You should expose that.

You have to tell us that.

Yes, Mr. Chair. We'll do that with the FDA.

But kung hindi ko pa sinabi, hindi nyo gagawin.

Meron po bang nagawa? And then I would like to show me proof na meron akong nagawa.

Ito naman yung Senate hearing kung saan na-expose ni Sen. Raffi yung disparity ng sweldo between ordinary PAGCOR employees na below minimum wage ang natatanggap at mga members of the board ng PAGCOR na tumatanggap ng hindi liliit sa 1 million pesos.

Ang basic salary ko po is 10,598.98.

Sir, di siya may sinungaling to?

Yes po.

Eh sinungaling ka pala, Mr. Ni Salvoza.

15,500 po.

15,500? 37 years.

Yung kanyang basic pay.

Ang sabi po sa akin ng ano, tanga GCJ, dinidribble daw po ng PAGCOR para hindi matuloy.

Magkano sweldo ng board? Isang member. Ba't bigyan ka ng example?

Variable po yung amount.

Magkaning average?

I think yung last ko pong recall, baka a little above 1 million lang po.

O, tangina!

Bullshit! Ay, sorry.

Pinapili lang ng suka dyan sa Sarisari store at nakita ng padrino, talaga rito, pasok ka sa PAGCOR.

Pinasok.

And niya tatanggap ng 208,000, samantalang ito sila 10, 27 years, 12 years below minimum wage.

Hindi ba kabalas to ganyan?

At kayo kayo dyan sa board ang nag-de-decide pala!

Now, maraming bumabatikos kay Sen. Raffi sa istilo niya sa pagtatanong during Senate inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation.

Grandstanding nga raw ayon sa kanyang mga detractors.

At dahil nang iinsulto daw si Sen. Raffi sa mga resources,

kahiyahiya at hindi raw siya karapat dapat maging senador.

Hindi raw marunong rumispeto si Sen. Raffi sa karapatan ng mga resource persons especially kung hindi nilang masagot ang kanyang mga tanong

o kapag hindi siya contento sa mga sagot nito o kapag sa tingin niya nagsisinungaling ang mga ito.

Which leads me to ask, naaayon ba sa batas at sa rules ng Senado ang pagtrato ni Sen. Raffi?

Bago natin sagutin yan, alamin muna natin kung ano ang basihan at layunin ng tinatawag na inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation.

Ito po ang nakasaad sa Section 21, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution.

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

Ito po ang nakasaad sa Section 21, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution.

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.

The rights of persons appearing or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

Ang basihan pala ng investigations in aid of legislation ay nasa ating saligang batas.

At dito makikita natin na hindi lang ang Senate kundi pati na ang House of Representatives ay may legislative power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

At dito makikita natin na hindi lang ang Senate kundi may legislative power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

Furthermore, ito ang sinabi ng Supreme Court in the case of Senate of the Philippines versus Eduardo Hermita,

GR number 169777, PETER Hua Corona, APRIL 20, 2006,

MR 16 Meinung v. Eduardo Hermita, emcee,

Can Ar довido lang silang EC,

andbunk decision po ito,

In the exercise of its legislative power, The Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate committees,

Dehori was still the parliament Continue sue ag logos,

conduct inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation.

Dehori was still the parliament Continue sue ag logos,

Dehori was still the parliament Continue sue ag logos,

which call for inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the Executive Department,

bureaus and offices including those employed in government-owned and controlled corporations,

the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the Philippine National Police.

May kapangyarihan po ang Senado na obligahin na mag-testify as resource persons

ang lahat ng opisyal at empleyado ng Executive Department,

mga bureaus nito at offices, pati na ang mga opisyal at empleyado ng mga government-owned and controlled corporations,

mga opisyal at sundalo ng Armed Forces of the Philippines, at mga opisyal at polis ng Philippine National Police.

Now, ano ba ang layunin ng kapangyarihan ito?

Yung kapangyarihan ang mag-conduct ng inquiry in aid of legislation.

Sa kaso po ni Regis Romero versus Sen. Jinggoy Estanado,

also decided by the Supreme Court and Bank,

inquiries in aid of legislation are undertaken as tools to enable the legislative body

to gather information and thus legislate wisely and effectively.

And to determine whether there is a need to improve existing laws or enact new or remedial legislation,

I'll bet the inquiry need not result in any potential legislation.

Ang purpose ng kapangyarihan ito ay,

ang purpose pala kaya nagkakandak ng Senate Inquiry ang mga senador ay para,

number one, kumuha ng impormasyon o dagdag kaalaman para mas mag-improve pa ang kanilang karunungan sa paggawa ng batas,

at number two, usisain kung meron pa bang kailangang i-improve sa mga kasalukuyang batas

o kung kailangan bang magpanukala ng panibagong batas.

Nakakatulong talaga ang inquiries in aid of legislation dahil,

sa pamamagitan ng pag-imbita ng mga resource persons na isisiwalat ang mga problema na nangangailangan ng solusyon.

Now, having underscored the importance of inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation,

usisain naman natin kung ano ba ang mga karapatan ng mga resource persons na kailangang respituhin ng ating mga mambabatas,

particularly ng ating mga senador.

Based on the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation,

ito po ang mga karapatan ng mga resource persons na dapat respituhin during the conduct of the inquiry.

Number one is the right to counsel,

and number two is the right or privilege against self-incrimination.

To repeat, merong dalawang karapatan ang mga resource persons na dapat respituhin ng ating mga mambabatas,

Ito ay ang karapatan sa abogado at karapatan na tumanggi sa pagsagot sa incriminating question.

Now, let us discuss first this right to counsel.

Ano ba ang sakop ng right to counsel during inquiries in aid of legislation?

Ang mga resource persons po na iniimbitahan sa Senado ay may karapatan na pumili ng abogado na kanilang gusto na mag-a-assist sa kanila

habang sila ay tumitistigo sa hearing ng Senado.

Pero ang karapatan ito ay limitado lamang sa pagbibigay ng advice sa resource person ingil sa mga karapatan niya.

Hindi po pwedeng tumistigo mismo ang abogado on behalf of the resource person o di kaya makipagtalo ito sa mga Senador.

Eh, ito namang karapatan na tumanggi sa pagsagot ng incriminating question. Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ito?

An incriminating question is one that has the right to counsel.

It has the tendency to implicate the person being asked that he is involved in the commission of a crime.

Under Article 3, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, this right against self-incrimination is also known as

the right of a person not to be compelled to testify against himself.

Meaning to say, hindi po pwedeng pilitin ang isang tao na tumistigo laban sa kanyang sarili.

For example, kunyari lang po ito ha.

Kasi merong hawak na CCTV footage si Sen. Riza showing Kibuloy bringing a young woman inside a motel on the night wherein she claimed that she was raped by the pastor.

Now, during the Senate inquiry na dinaluhan ni Kibuloy, tinanong ngayon ni Sen. Riza si Kibuloy kung maaari ba niyang kumpirmahin na siya ang lalaking nakita sa nasabing CCTV footage.

This is clearly an incriminating question.

And the answer to which will clearly implicate the pastor for the crime of rape.

Since this is an incriminatory question, maaari pong tanggihan ito ni Kibuloy as this will violate his right against self-incrimination.

Base sa mga videos na ipinakita natin kanina at base na rin sa kabuuan ng mga Senate hearings na dinaluhan ni Sen. Rafi,

nilabag ba ni Sen. Rafi?

Ang right to counsel at right against self-incrimination ng mga resource persons?

Technically, nakalagay sa mismong rules ng Senado na

The committee, by a majority vote of the members present, there being a quorum, shall determine whether the right has been properly invoked.

If the committee decides otherwise, it shall resume its investigation and the question or questions previously refused to be answered shall be repeated to the witness.

If the latter continues to...

refuse to answer the question, the committee may punish him for contempt or contumacious conduct.

So kahit na i-invoke pa ng resource person ang kanyang right against self-incrimination,

kung sa tingin ng Senado ay hindi ito incriminating, mapipilitan po talaga ang resource person na sagutin niya ang tanong.

At kung tatanggi pa rin siya, pwede siyang i-cite for contempt.

You might ask,

Eh, Fiskal, bakit po ang mga Senador, particularly si Sen. Rafi, bakit parang hinuhusgahan na niya ang mga resource persons?

Hindi po ba violation yan sa kanilang right or privilege against self-incrimination?

Hindi po violation yan ng right against self-incrimination dahil na i-invoke lang po ang nasabing karapatan if there is a question that tends to elicit an incriminating answer.

Yung paghusga po ni Sen. Rafi,

sa mga resource persons, opinion lang po niya yun, base sa naoobserbahan niya.

Hindi po bawal yun dahil hindi naman korte ang isang inquiry in aid of legislation at hindi naman acting as judges ang mga Senador when they question or interrogate resource persons.

Meron din pong privilege of speech and debate ang mga Senador.

Ano ba itong privilege of speech and debate?

Members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for any words spoken in debate or in connection with voting or used in written reports or with things generally done in a session of either house in relation to the business before it.

This protection is extended to them during the session on the occasion of the exercise of their functions either in their respective chambers or in joint assembly or in committees or commission.

In short, hindi po pwedeng kasuhan ang ating mga Senador sa kanilang mga sinabi sa loob ng Senado

maging sa debate man yan o habang nag-iimbestiga sila in committee hearings kasama na ang inquiries in aid of legislation.

Ang tawag po dito ay

Absolutely Privileged Communication.

Hindi po pwedeng kasuhan ng libel ang ating mga Senador kahit na gaano pa kadefamatory ang kanilang mga binitawa na salita

laban sa mga resource persons o maging sa kapwa nila Senador.

The purpose of this privilege of speech or debate is not to protect them from prosecution but to enable them as representatives of the people

to execute the functions of their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal.

The rationale here is hindi po magagawa ng mga Senador ang kanilang tungkulin na mag-imbestiga ng anomalya

at magpanukala ng batas kung mayat-maya na lang ay kakasuhan sila ng mga Senador

na kadibate nila o ng mga taong iniimbestigahan nila.

Trabaho po kasi ng ating mga mambabatas na makipagdibate at mag-imbestiga

such that it is but reasonable and practical that they should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech

in relation to the performance of their functions.

So, dun sa tanong kung naaayos,

ayon ba sa batas at sa rules ng Senado ang pagtrato ni Sen. Rafi Tulfo sa mga resource persons?

Ang sagot dyan is, yes po.

Walang nilalabag na batas si Sen. Rafi sa pagtrato niya sa mga resource persons.

Tanong, may mga past and present Senators ba na medyo bumabardagol din sa mga resource persons?

Kung paano ginamit ni Sen. Aguila ang bulag na paniniwalaan,

para linlangan ang mga miyembro ng kanyang kulto,

danoon din ginamit at bulag na ginagamit ni Apolo Kibuloy,

ang bulag na paniniwala para abusuhin ang mga miyembro ng Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

There are many things that I have uncovered in the course of preparing for this hearing.

May ebidensya tayo ng panggagahasa sa menor de edad,

ng pisikal na pangabuso sa mga mismang tagapagsunod nila.

Kagaya ba naman ng paglagay ng sili sa mata at ari,

magbagok ng ulo sa pader,

ng sapilitang pangdagamit sa mga bata na manlimos sa kalsada?

Kapag nalaman din kay Si Daniel Чтобы,

mayroon ka bang kinalangainedad?

Personal. Hindi lang sa kinalamang mukha, ang mittalang nilala nito.

Sila na ba na kiilang admitsan?

Sana, ako ay zukay angären.

Wala naman.

Ang pagkakalizon na Vale pl Gro sir?

Thank you very much. When we speak to zero distraction symbol, one after the charm that we always talk about,

I invoke my right.

Hindi ka na niya ipapatay.

Alam mo yung taong yan?

Pag pumunta yan sa bathroom namin dito sa aming Senator's Lounge,

may guard giant sa bathroom,

sa kubeta,

na nakalong

long firearm, assault rifle.

Alam mo.

May mahirap kang

wagong

na-estimate yung hindi rin na yan.

Pagpaping pa rin si Tanda.

Tell the truth,

before the

Senator's affected,

have you assassinated?

May I be

permitted to point out

first of all,

Why do you have to point out?

Answer! Yes or no?

The allegations. I am tired of hearing

your voice. Yes, but

the allegations of the

complaint determine the

jurisdiction of the court over the

case, Your Honor. Do not override

me. I have already heard that

on your pleadings. You've

said that in your

motion for subpoena,

you've said that in your memorandum.

Do not be sententious

because every hour counts.

Kaya, madali lang naman

sagutin itong pagtatanong na ito.

Ito bang pinapasagot natin

o respondent natin?

Ay binibintangan mo sa ilalim ng

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Yes or no? Opo, Madam

Senator, dahil nakalagay dito

in violation of the Anti-Graft

and Corrupt Practices Act.

Give me the presumption of literacy.

Yes. And don't ever

overstep yourself. Ngayon,

pagtatanong ko sa iyo ganito,

do not engage in a

colloquy with me. As I pointed out during the

Estrada impeachment trial, you are not supposed

to discuss or argue

during an impeachment trial.

Especially when you are speaking to an

impeachment judge. Can we

answer the question, however,

the way we feel it should

be answered? No. You should answer

according to the rules of court as determined

by the Senate acting as an impeachment.

That is the rule here.

Can the specific rule be cited

for our guidance? Yes.

Okay.

The Constitution allows

the Senate to

promulgate its own rules of procedure.

That has been repeated in this instance.

And this is the end of this colloquy.

How dare you

raise questions to my authority.

Be careful.

Because I might

request my colleagues to inhibit you

and disqualify you from appearing here.

So, kita nyo na,

may iba't-ibang istilo po ang mga

senador in the way they interrogate

witnesses. As shown

in the video, si Sen. Riza

maanghang at accusatory.

Pero hindi lang siguro

nahalata dahil malumanay

siyang magsalita.

Si dating Sen. Miriam naman ay ganun din.

Maanghang at para kang

kakainin ang buhay. Pero

people tend to give her a pass

dahil inglesera at isang

abugada. May sofisticated

investigation, ika nga.

Yan lang po ang gusto kong ipunto

for today's video at sana po may

natutunan kayong bagong kaalaman

ukol sa tamang batas.

Maraming salamat po.