REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
MANILA

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ,
Complainant,

- versus - I.S. No. XVI-INV-10E-00143

For: Libel

ALEJANDRO ALFONSO E. NAVARRO,

F. ARTHUR L. VILLARAZA,
AVELINO J. CRUZ, JR., SIMEON
V. MARCELO, RAOUL R. ANGANGCO,
DAXIM L. LUCAS and PERGENTINO
B. BANDAYREL, JR.,
Responden ts.
n)-
\,
x -------------------------- x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, ATTY. RAOUL R. ANGANGCO ("Atty. Angangco") ,

Filipino, of legal age, with office address at 118 Perea

Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, Metro Manila, after

having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose

c-.
U and state:

1. I am a Name and Co-Managing Partner of Villaraza

Cruz Marcelo & Angangco (hereinafter, "CVCLAW").

2. I am one of the respondents in the above-captioned

case filed by complainant Francisco I. Chavez ("Chavez") ,

accusing me, among other respondents, of having allegedly

committed the crime of libel by allegedly publishing and/or

causing to be published a statement which purportedly imputed

to him a vice, defect, omission or circumstance that

1
 allegedly dishonored and discredited his "unsullied

reputation as a legal advocate, and as a former Solicitor

General".

3. I am submitting the instant Counter-Affidavi t in

refutation of the false and baseless accusations leveled

against me by complainant Chavez.

4. CVCLAW is a general professional partnership of

lawyers duly organized and existing under and by virtue of

the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, and engaged in

the private practice of law. For more than thirty (30) years,
n-
--u CVCLAW has enjoyed a solid reputation for excellence,

workmanship and professionalism. From a small office in

Makati, it was able to rise quickly to the top of the legal

industry through hard work and perseverance.

5. Without any provocation, and as I and the other

respondents were quietly going about our own business,

complainant Chavez suddenly started publicly accusing CVCLAW

and its partners of "influence peddling" and "transactional

litigation", among other disparaging assertions. When a

response was made to defend the good name of the partners of

CVCLAW who never held public office, complainant Chavez

immediately filed the instant libel case when, ironically, it

was he who spewed the vile and defamatory statements in the

first place.

6. The instant criminal complaint is thus nothing less

than a malicious attempt to harass and tarnish the good name

and reputation of CVCLAW and its partners. Indeed,

2
considering the background between complainant Chavez and

CVCLAW and its partners, it can be deduced that complainant

Chavez is animated by an undeserved sense of ill-will and

hatred toward respondents, CVCLAW and its partners.

6.1. The filing of the instant case has come

as a shock to me and the other respondents since

complainant Chavez received nothing but help and

assistance from CVCLAW and its partners.

6.2. Indeed, the help extended to complainant

Chavez goes way back to the days when he was still

a young law student at the University of the

Philippines College of Law ("UP College of Law").

During these times, he had no financial means to

complete his law degree. In fact, respondent Atty.

F. Arthur L. Villaraza ("Villaraza") was among

those who contributed sums of money to help

complainant Chavez complete his law education. 1 It

is thus surprising that in exchange for his

generosi ty, a baseless libel suit was the thanks

complainant Chavez gave to respondent Atty.

Villaraza.

6.3. Furthermore, in 1992, when complainant

Chavez was a candidate for the Senate, it was

lawyers from CVCLAW (then known as Carpio

Vi1laraza & Cruz) that represented him pro bono in

the successful disqualification case against a

Please see the Affidavit dated 11 June 2010 of Atty. Victor C.

Fernandez, attached as Annex "1",

3
 certain Melchor Chavez, a namesake who was also a

contender for the senatorial race. 2 Again, instead

of showing thanks to those that helped him,

complainant Chavez surprisingly had nothing but

ingratitude. Despite our lawyers having won the

case for him, he lost in the 1992 elections (and

subsequently lost again in another bid for a

Senate seat).

6.4. Respondents were thus totally surprised

by the filing of the instant suit by one to whom

they extended helping hands and generosity. The

instant suit thus exposes the depravity, lack of

moral fiber, and pettiness of complainant Chavez.

As will be seen in the instant Counter-Affidavit,

beneath the veil of his pontification lurks the

real character of complainant Chavez, one consumed

by malice, obsessed with self-aggrandizement,

maniacal narcissism and professional jealousy,

which are the bases of this suit. As for any legal

merit or substance, the instant charges will be

proven to be sorely bereft thereof.

6.5. As will be shown later, the subject

statement is not even defamatory. In fact, his

Complaint-Affidavit dated 24 May 2010 ("Complaint-

Affidavit") is the one that is defamatory of him.

Supreme Court Resolution dated 05 May 1992 in "Francisco Chavez VB.

Commission on Elections, et al. N , G.R. No. 104704.

4
 6.5.1. Naturally, in support of the

fact that he has a reputation to protect,

complainant Chavez's Complaint-Affidavit

includes a Bio-Data 3 even thicker than the

Complaint-Affidavit itself. It is a

twenty-eight (28) -pager which contains

entries on himself, including gems such

as: "writer of term papers for students";

"streetfighter"; "UP man of the year

(1969)"; "(r)ecorded in music studio his

versions of 'Can't Help Falling In Love',

'When You Tell Me That You Love Me',

'Trouble' and 'Blue Suede Shoes'''; and

last but definitely not the least, "Iron

Man, Superman and Batman packed into one".

Lest he be accused of trumpeting his own

horn, he is quick to state in his

Complaint-Affidavit that "I forbid anyone

from ever forwarding it to the Noynoy

Aquino search committee",4 which is a pity

since an "Iron Man, Superman and Batman

packaged into one" may be exactly what the

President-elect will need, if not a

confessed "writer of term papers for

students" for the Department of Education.

6.5.2. The Complaint-Affidavit of

complainant Chavez, which is fatally

3
Annex "C" of the Complaint-Affidavit.
At p. 17 of the Complaint-Affidavit.

5
 defective for being plagued with

jurisdictional defects and for being

insufficient in form and substance and

bereft of allegations establishing the

very basic elements of libel, will have

little substantive value in a law class.

His Bio-Data though will prove to be an

interesting and instructional case study

in a psychology class.

GROUND FOR THE OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL

OF THE COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

7. Right off the bat, the instant Complaint-Affidavit

is fatally defective and should be dismissed for the

following reasons:

I. The Honorable Office Has No

Jurisdiction Over The Instant Case
Considering That The Same Was
Filed At The Wrong Venue.

8. In the very recent case of Bonifacio VS. Regional

Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149, G.R. No. 184800, 05 May

2010, the Supreme Court firmly held:

"Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions

such that the place where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the action but
constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction.
This principle acquires even greater import in
libel cases, given that Article 360 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, specifically provides for
the possible venues for the institution of the
criminal and civil aspects of such cases."
(Emphasis supplied)

6
 9. The foregoing rules on venue in libel extend even

to the conduct of preliminary investigations in libel cases.

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

"Article 360. Persons responsible. - x x x

Preliminary investigation of criminal actions

for written defamations as provided for in the
chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or
ci ty fiscal of the province of city, or by the
municipal court of the city or capital of the
province where such actions may be instituted in
accordance with the provisions of this article."
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

10. In Agbayani VB. Sayo, 89 SCRA 699 (1979), the

Co Supreme Court held:

"As a corollary and in view of the

legislative intent to prevent the harassment of
the accused by means of criminal complaints in
remote municipal courts, the preliminary
investigation of the criminal action for written
defamation shall be conducted by the provincial or
ci ty fiscal of the province or city, or by the
municipal court of the city or capital of the
province where such action may be instituted." (At
p. 705; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

11. In Guyud VB. Pine, 395 SCRA 26 (2003), the Supreme

Court even chastised the respondent judge therein for

'ignorance of the law when the respondent judge conducted the

preliminary investigation for libel despite the fact that the

court wherein he presides has no jurisdiction to conduct said

preliminary investigation under Article 360 of the Revised

Penal Code:

"Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code indeed

provides that preliminary investigations of libel
cases shall be conducted by the provincial or city
prosecutor of the province or city or by the
municipal court of the city or capital of the
province in which the criminal action may be

7
 filed. In this case, the MTC of Echague, over
which respondent presides, is not a municipal
trial court of the city or of the capital of the
province and, therefore, has no jurisdiction to
conduct the preliminary investigation of Criminal
Case No. 5807. This is a matter which respondent,
as presiding judge, ought to know. In Dumo v.
Perez this Court said that although judges cannot
be held to account or answer criminally, civilly
or administratively for every erroneous judgment
or decision rendered by him in good faith, it is
imperative that they should have basic knowledge
of the law. The jurisdiction of the court over
which one presides is such basic matter. To be
able to render justice and to maintain public
confidence in the legal system, judges must keep
abreast of the laws and jurisprudence. Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides
that judges must be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence. Obviously, they cannot
live up to this expectation if they act in a case
wi thout jurisdiction through ignorance." (At p.
31; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

12. Complainant Chavez, who in his own mind believes

himself to be a lawyer par excellance, has consistently

failed to grasp even this simple concept. Thus, complainant

Chavez himself was taken to school by the Supreme Court due

to the fact that his libel complaint did not reflect the
Co correct venue, thus resulting in the dismissal of his case.

In Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 514 SCRA 279 (2007) ,

complainant Chavez, like a first year law student, had to be

given a lesson on the simple rules on venue in libel cases: 5

"The rules on venue in article 360 may be

restated thus:

1. Whether the offended party is a public

official or a private person, the criminal action
may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the

5
Please also see the attached 12 February 2007 article written by
Victor C. Agustin entitled, "BC gives Chavez crasb. lesson" f attached
as Annex "2 11

8
 province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published.

2. If the offended party is a private

individual, the criminal action may also be filed
in the Court of First Instance of the province
where he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense.

3. If the offended party is a public officer

whose office is in Manila at the time of the
commission of the offense, the action may be filed
in the court of First Instance of Manila.

4. If the offended party is a public officer

holding office outside of Manila, the action may be
filed in the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where he held office at the time
of the commission of the offense.

x x x

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED." (Emphasis

and underscoring supplied)

13. Thus, not being a public officer then (having lost

twice in his bid to become a Senator), complainant Chavez had

only two (2) options where to file the instant libel

complaint: (1) his residence; or (2) where the alleged

libelous article was printed and first published.

13.1. Complainant Chavez, in his Complaint-

Affidavit, claims that his residence is in Makati. 6

In the meantime, it cannot be denied that the

printing of the sub j ect article also occurred in

Makati City as the address of the Philippine Daily

Inquirer ("POI") is in Chino Roces Avenue corner

Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City.

6
Par. 1 at p. 1 of the Complaint-Affidavit.

9
 13.2. Even complainant Chavez admitted that

Makati City is where the instant Complaint-

Affidavit should have been filed.? The fact that it

was filed in the City of Manila thus makes the

same dismissible for lack of jurisdiction. s

14. Clearly, for the Honorable Office to be vested with

jurisdiction, the instant Complaint-Affidavit must have been

filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City

("OCP Makati"), and not with the Honorable Office, which has

its office in the City of Manila.

15. Complainant Chavez's convenient excuse that the OCP

Makati is headed by Hon. Feliciano A. Aspi, who he unfairly

characterizes as supposedly a "known protege, ally,

collaborator and protector of herein respondents," does not

furnish him with a justification to circumvent jurisdictional

requirements and file his Complaint-Affidavi t in an office

which lacks jurisdiction over the same.

15.1. If complainant Chavez truly believes

that he will not receive a fair and impartial

investigation before the OCP Makati, then the

7 In his Complaint-Affidavit, complainant Chavez admitted:

"2.4. While I incipiently intended to file this
Complaint-Affidavit in Makati City where I reside, I had to
desist due to the proscriptive circumstance that the Office
of the City Prosecutor in Makati is headed by City Prosecutor
Feliciano Aspi - a known protege, ally, collaborator and
protector of herein respondents. Accordingly, to file the
Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Makati would be foolhardy and an exercise in frustration
as this Complain't will never stand a Chinaman's chance for
obj ective evaluation." (At p , 6; emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
a Chavez VB. Court of Appeals, supra; Macasaet VB. People, 452 seRA 255
(2005); Bonifacio vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149,
supra.

10
 proper procedure would have been for him to file

his Complaint-Affidavi t before the OCP Makati and

to move for the disqualification/inhibition of the

latter and show by clear and convincing evidence

that the OCP Makati has committed acts or conduct

9
clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice.

15.2. Indeed, the 2008 Revised Manual for

Prosecutors recognizes that a party may move for

the transfer of a case for preliminary

investigation where parties question the

Co partiality or bias of prosecutors of a particular

provincial or city prosecution office. 1 o

15.3. In relation to the foregoing, where

there is a perceived failure or ground to

disqualify or inhibit the local prosecution

office, the Honorable Office, through the Office

of the Chief State Prosecutor ("OCSP"), may take

11
over the preliminary investigation stage.

16. Yet, no such motion was filed for the

inhibition/disqualification of the Makati City Prosecutor.

What is clear is that complainant Chavez unlawfully took

procedural shortcuts and effectively ruled upon and granted

his own Motion for Inhibition when he filed his Complaint-

Affidavit with the Honorable Office, effectively arrogating

upon himself the jurisdiction and discretion to determine

9
cf. Barnes vs. Reyes, 598 SeRA 107 (2009).
10 Part IV (II) (H) thereof in relation to Department Order No. 54 dated
20 February 1992.
11 Part II, paragraph 4 of DOJ Circular No. 62, series of 2000.

11
whether the Makati City Prosecutor should inhibit himself

from the instant case.

17. Evidently, therefore, complainant Chavez committed

a fatal mistake when he arrogantly assumed that he could

circumvent the jurisdictional rules on venue and file his

Compla in t-Affidavi t with the Honorable Office on the false

pretext that the OCP Makati is headed by an alleged "known

protege, ally, collaborator and protector of herein

respondents".

17.1. Complainant Chavez should be reminded

that "bias and partiality can never be presumed"

and that bare or "(u)nsupported statements of

partiality will not suffice in the absence of

contrary evidence that will overcome the

presumption that the State Prosecutor regularly

performed his duty."12

18. What is more, even if Manila is a proper venue,

complainant Chavez should have filed in the OCP Manila. A

direct filing of the instant complaint with the Honorable

Office is not allowed since there is no Task Force designated

by the Honorable Secretary of Justice to handle the

investigation and prosecution of libel cases, including the

instant criminal complaint. In fact, the Subpoena to

Respondents dated 02 June 2010 issued by the Honorable

Theodore M. Villanueva, Senior State Prosecutor, does not

show that the Honorable Senior State Prosecutor was

12 Chan vs. Secretary of Justice, 548 seRA 337 (2008).

12
 designated by the Honorable Secretary of Justice to take

cognizance of the instant complaint. In the absence of such

designation, with all due respect, the Honorable Senior State

Prosecutor is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the

instant case.

19. All told, the instant complaint must perforce be

immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

20. At any rate, the instant Complaint-Affidavit should

be dismissed considering that complainant Chavez miserably

failed to discharge his burden of establishing probable cause

that the crime of libel as defined and penalized under

Article 353 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal

Code has been committed and that respondents are probably

guilty thereof.

GROUNDS FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE

n"
_U II. The Co~~aint-Aidavit Should
Dismissed For Evident Lack
Be
Of
Probable Cause.

21. To put things in the proper perspective, a brief

background of the recent events that led to the filing of the

Complaint-Affidavit is warranted.

22. On 18 May 2010, an article entitled "Ex-So~gen Tags

'The Firm' in Drive vs New CJ", authored by Philip C. Tubeza,

was published and/or caused to be published in the regular

issue of the POI, a daily newspaper of general circulation in

the Philippines (the "POI article of 18 May 2010"). Said

13
article, which contained indiscriminate libelous statements

made by complainant Chavez against CVCLAW and its partners,

reads in pertinent parts:

"IS THE FIRM MAKING A COMEBACK?

Former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez

yesterday assailed what he said were attempts by
members of The Firm, a law office formerly
associated with the First Couple, to return to the
corridors of power with the impending inauguration
of the Aquino presidency.

Chavez said that former Defense Secretary

Avelino 'Nonong' Cruz Jr. was eyeing the post of
justice secretary while former Ombudsman Simeon
Marcelo wanted to become a member of the Judicial
and Bar Council.

He also said that Cruz and Marcelo could not

present themselves as 'crusaders or apostles of
deliverance' in the controversy over the
appointment of Chief Justice Renato Corona because
they were ranking members of the Arroyo
administration when it was rocked by scandals.

Influence-peddling

Chavez, the solicitor general during the

administration of President Corazon Aquino, alleged
that The Firm (known as the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo
& Angangco law office) was supposedly engaged in
'influence-peddling' and 'illegal transactions'
before it had a falling out with President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo.

Asked about Chavez's al.Le qat.Lon s , Cruz last

night declined to comment and said he would issue
his reply today. Cruz and Marcelo have been very
critical of Ms Arroyo's appointment of Corona as
the new chief justice.

'Let us put this in proper perspective. I

filed four plunder raps against GMA (Ms Arroyo) but
Ombudsman Marcelo did not lift a finger on these.
In fact, he inhibited himself, an indication that
he was biased for Gloria,' Chavez said.

Not a squeak

'All these lawyers who are now making these

noises did not make a squeak then, not even a
whimper of protest.' Chavez said.

14
 'Why are they making noise now? They are
positioning themselves for the incoming
administration?' he added.

Chavez said that Cruz and Marcelo were

'fighting' Corona because they were rooting for
Justice Antonio Carpio, a former member of The
Firm, to become Chief Justice.

'If> that happens, then happy days are here

again. They should realize that their influence-
peddling days are over. They should not be allowed
to spread their venom of illegal transactions in
the new administration,' he said.

'We should also remember that Avelino Cruz is

there for Mar Roxas and not for Noynoy Aquino,'
Chavez added.

Appointments

The former solicitor general said persons

linked to The Firm were also asking members of the
legal community if they wanted to be judges of the
Regional Trial Courts or the Court of Appeals and
if former Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio
was acceptable as an Ombudsman.

Chavez said he was ready to present the

persons who were asked.

'They should not behave as if they own the

Philippines. It's as if they're the ones deciding
where the spoils go,' he said.

r:
, >
'So, what if they belong to The Firm? I will
be firmer,' he added.
'~)

x X X"13 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

23. Continuing his malicious tirade, on 20 May 2010, at

around 7:12 a.m., respondent Chavez appeared on a television

program entitled "Umagang Kay Ganda", more specifically, in a

segment thereof hosted by Anthony Taberna ("Taberna") called

" Punta Par Punta" , which is broadcast nationwide

simul taneously through ABS-CBN Channel 2 and ABS-CBN News

Channel 27.

13 A copy of the full text of the PDI article of 18 May 2010 as published
in the POI is attached as Annex "3".

15
 23.1. During the course of his interview on

national television, complainant Chavez uttered

libelous statements again, accusing CVCLAW and its

partners of allegedly controlling, for personal

interest or gain, the whole Philippine legal

apparatus and purportedly using their alleged

influence to cause the appointment of lackeys to

key government positions.

24. On the same date, at around 7:33 a.m., and not

satisfied with his earlier tirade, complainant Chavez

continued his malicious statements in a radio program

entitled ~Dos Por Dos u , also hosted by Taberna, again

broadcast nationwide through DZMM, and likewise aired on

television through DZMM Teleradyo Channel 26.

24.1. During the course of his interview,

complainant Chavez repeated the previous

'allegations he made as published in the PDr

article of 18 May 2010 and those that he uttered

in the segment ~ Punto Por Punto u He elaborated by

claiming that CVCLAW and its partners use their

alleged influence to exploit the "u t ariq na Loeb"

of officials whom CVCLAW supposedly ~endorsedu or

lodged to government positions, thereby resulting

in its ability to manipulate the justice system

for its own ends.

16
 25. As a result of the foregoing unprovoked, unfounded

and indiscriminate tirades of complainant Chavez against

CVCLAW and the partners composing it, respondent Atty.

Alejandro Alfonso E. Navarro ("Navarro") , speaking for

himself and on behalf of the partners of CVCLAW who never

held public office, issued a statement in defense of the

honor and reputation of the said partners against the vicious

and malicious attacks made by complainant Chavez (the

"subject statement") .14

26. The subject statement was quoted by respondent

(0 Lucas in the news article entitled, "The Firm Hits Back at

Chavez",15 which appeared on the 21 May 2010 issue of the PDI

(the "subject PDI article"), and which is now the subject of

the instant Compla in t-Affidavi t . The subj ect PDI article as

published is quoted below:

"The Firm hits back at Chavez

UNDER FIRE FROM CRITICS FOR purportedly

positioning itself to grab an influential role in
the incoming Aquino administration, the Villaraza
Cruz Marcelo and Angangco Law Office yesterday hit
back at one of the fiercest of those critics.

The law office known as the 'The Firm' accused

former Solicitor General Frank Chavez of trying to
win - at their expense - an appointment in the
Cabinet of President-apparent Benigno Aquino III as
the secretary of justice.

'There is no excuse for attorney Chavez's

bitter tirades against The Firm', said senior
partner Alej andro Alfonso E. Navarro in an
interview with the INQUIRER.

'No good and justifiable motives can possibly

be behind this only professional jealousy or
perhaps an eye toward the DOJ post, or both, can

14 A copy of the subject statement is attached as Annex "4".

15 Annex "A" of the Complaint-Affidavit.

17
 put some sense into his bizarre and irrational
fixation with The Firm', he said.

Eyeing DOJ

Chavez has accused senior members of the

Villaraza law office of positioning themselves for
plum posts in the next administration, specifically
Avelino Cruz, Jr. who, he claimed, is eyeing the
justice portfolio, and former Ombudsman Simeon
Marcelo who purportedly wants to be appointed to
the Judicial and Bar Council.

Navarro said that instead of attacking The

Firm, Chavez should simply send his resume to
Aquino's search committee so that it may stand side
by side with those partners of The Firm he deludes
himself to be equal with.

'His resume should include for proper

prospective, his record as solicitor general, which
has been unkindly called 'unblemished' by those in
the know,' he said, alluding to the derisive phrase
'unblemished by victory' used to describe lawyers
with a poor track record.

Navarro, who said he was speaking on behalf of

all the lawyers of The Firm who have not held
public office, said there was 'nothing new' in
Chavez's latest attacks.

Vintage Frank Chavez

'The malice and viciousness of language is

vintage Frank Chavez,' he said, 'The timing of
these attacks is also not surprising. It is
appointments season for the incoming administration
and demolition jobs against perceived appointments
to government are par for the course.'

Navarro urged Chavez to direct his criticism

at The Firm's partners who had held public office
while sparing the rest of the law office's
partners.

'A line has to be drawn when libel extends to

pri vate individuals and firms,' he said. 'Attorney
Chavez has crossed that line.'"

27. A cursory reading of the subject statement

instantly reveals that the same does not constitute libel

against complainant Chavez.

18
 28. Libel is defined as a public and malicious

imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or

imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or

circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or

contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the

memory of one who is dead. 1 6

29. Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, an

accused may be held liable for the crime of libel if the

following elements concur:

a. The allegation of a discreditable act or

condition concerning another;

b. Publication of the charge;

c. Identity of the person defamed; and

d. Existence of malice. 17

30. As will be discussed below, the lack of the

elements of the crime of libel as listed above justify the

dismissal of the instant complaint against me, as well as the

other respondents in the instant case.

A. The Subject Statement Is Not

Defamatory.

31. In his Complaint-Affidavi t, complainant Chavez

claims that the respondents (including myself), allegedly made

a defamatory statement regarding his track record as former

Solicitor General by calling it "unblemished by victory" .18

16 Article 353, Revised Penal Code.

17 Insular Life Assurance Company, Limited vs. Serrano, 525 seRA 400, 406
(2007)
18 Par. 4, at pp. 8 - 9 of the Complaint-Affidavit.

19
 32. For clarity, the portion of the subj ect statement

which complainant Chavez claims is defamatory is as

follows 1 9 :

"His resume should include, for proper

perspective, his record as solicitor general which
has been unkindly called 'unblemished' by those in
the know." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

33. It is readily apparent that the phrase "unblemished

by victory" is nowhere to be found in the subject statement.

In fact, far from disparaging complainant Chavez, the

statement emphasizes that such record of complainant Chavez

is unkindly called unblemished. Thus, respondents never

stated that complainant Chavez's record was unblemished by

victory but, to the contrary, even took complainant Chavez's

side. Apart from being blinded from reading the words

"unkindly called," perhaps complainant Chavez, like so many

others, automatically equates "unblemished" with "unblemished

by victory" when used to describe himself.

34. Complainant Chavez's belief that respondents

supposedly disparaged his reputation in making the subject

statement springs from his own imagination or his own assessment

of himself and not from the subj ect statement. The same thus

falls under the definition of an .i.nnuendo''? since it springs not

from the subject statement but only from the complaint.

19 See copy of the full statement attached as Annex "4" hereof.

20 Black's Law Dictionary defines innuendo as follows:
"An 'innuendo' in pleading in libel action is a
statement by plaintiff of construction which he puts upon
works which are alleged to be libelous and which meaning he
will induce jury to adopt to trial. Its function is to set a
meaning upon words or language of doubtful or ambiguous
import which alone would not be actionable." (Joseph R. Nolan
and Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Black's Law Dictionary, 6t h
edition, p. 789; emphasis supplied)

20
 35. Being mere innuendo, the subj ect statement cannot

be libelous. In U.S. VB. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918), the

Supreme Court held that an innuendo cannot alter the sense of

the words claimed to be libelous and that if the publication

is not actionable per se, an innuendo cannot make it so:

"But the innuendo can only be explanatory of

the words to which it is attached. It cannot alter
the sense of the words claimed to be libelous; it
cannot enlarge or restrict the natural meaning of
words; and it cannot render certain that which is
uncertain, except in so far as it connects the
words published with the extrinsic or explanatory
circumstances. If the publication is not
actionable per se, an innuendo cannot make it so."
(At pp. 760 - 770; emphasis supplied)

36. Considering that the sUbject statement never

described complainant Chavez's track record as former

Solicitor General as "unblemished by victory," complainant

Chavez cannot enlarge the plain meaning of said statement by

supplying words that clearly do not appear therein through

innuendos.

1. In Any Event, The

Subject Statement Could
Not Have Caused The
Dishonor Or Discredit Of
Complainant Chavez.

37. In the Complaint-Affidavit, complainant Chavez

bewails that the subject statement purportedly imputed to him

a vice, defect, omission or circumstance that allegedly

dishonored and discredited his "unsullied reputation as a

legal advocate, and as a former Solicitor General," for which

reason, we should allegedly be held criminally responsible

for libel.

21
 38. Complainant Chavez's claims should be simply

rejected since the very predicate for his alleged dishonor is

absent. Complainant Chavez has no reputation to protect. Far

from being able to claim an "unsullied" reputation,

complainant Chavez's history shows his reputation is indeed

anything but immaculate.

39. Libel connotes published words imputing to another

any act which tends to disgrace him or deprive him of the

confidence and goodwill of society, or lessen its esteem for

him. 2 1 In MVRS Pub., Inc. vs. Is~amic Da'wah Counci~ of the

Phi~s., Inc., 396 SCRA 210 (2003), the Supreme Court defined

defamatory language in this wise:

"Defamation, which includes libel and

slander, means the offense of injuring a person's
character, fame or reputation through false and
malicious statements. It is that which tends to
injure reputation or to diminish the esteem,
respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff
or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about
the plaintiff. It is the publication of anything
which is injurious to the good name or reputation
of another or tends to bring him into disrepute.
Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest
since it involves the opinion which others in the
community may have, or tend to have, of the
plaintiff. x x x" (At pp. 218 - 219; emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

40. Apparent from the foregoing definition of

defamation is the essential element that the person defamed

must possess a "good name and reputation" which is diminished

by the imputations made by the person being charged. By

definition, "reputation" is what people commonly say about a

person. 22 It reflects general knowledge in the community. 23 In

21 L.A. Martinez, "What is Libel?" I Annotations, 90 seRA 82, 82-83

(1979) .
22 United States vs. North Caro~ina Nationa~ Bank, 336 F.2d 248 (1964).
23 United States vs. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782 (1980).

22
this jurisdiction, it is accepted doctrine that a man's

reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself, but the

estimation in which others hold him. 2 4

41. Based on the foregoing definition of "defamation",

it is clear that complainant Chavez, a self-proclaimed

champion of the rule of law, is sorely mistaken in asserting

that the subj ect statement is allegedly defamatory of his

character and reputation.

42. It is a well-known fact that during his tenure as

Solicitor General and even thereafter, complainant Chavez had

a habit of losing high profile and important government cases

and was furthermore constantly entangled in numerous

controversies and questionable transactions, some of which

are outlined below.

42.1. First among these controversies is the

Hacienda Luisita case. In his privilege speech

delivered on 08 June 1989, Senator Juan Ponce

Enrile ("Enrile" ) explained how complainant

Chavez, as then Solicitor General, inexplicably

managed to cause the dismissal of a case that was

already won by the government against Tarlac

Development Corporation (TADECO) and the heirs of

the late Jose Cojuangco, Sr. 25

24 Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 657,687 (1997).

25 Please see the 08 June 1989 privilege speech delivered by Senator
Enrile (the "Enri1e privilege speech"), at pp. 1463-1469 of the Senate
Record of the Second Regular Session dated 10 April to 08 June 1989,
Vol. IV, Nos. 107-143, a certified true copy of which is attached to
the original of the instant Counter-Affidavit as Annex "5", while
photocopies of the same are attached to the other copies of the
instant Counter-Affidavit.

23
 42.2. Complainant Chavez is also famous for

his habit of abandoning his cases in midstream. 2 6 In

Gonzales vs. Chavez, 205 SCRA 816 (1992), the

Supreme Court strongly reprimanded complainant

Chavez for dereliction of duty when he unexpectedly

withdrew his appearance as counsel for the

government, represented by the Presidential

Commission on Good Government ("PCGG"), in a total

of one hundred forty-four (144) cases based on

"petty reasons". 27 The Supreme Court even chastised

complainant Chavez for exerting more vigor in

appearing in a civil suit for damages filed against

him before the Regional Trial Court arising from

defamatory remarks uttered by him, than in those

that he handled for the PCGG. 28

42.3. Also worth mentioning is complainant

Chavez's dismal track record during his stint as

n.(.~, the Solicitor General. Quoting from an article in

\.. '
J
the 04 February 1992 issue of the Philippine Times

Journal, Congressman Albano made reference to

complainant Chavez's "almost untarnished record"

in reacting to the latter's declaration to run for

the Senate. 29

26 Please see p , 7 of the privilege speech dated 05 February 1992

deli vered by former Isabela Congressman Rodolfo Albano (the "Albano
privilege speech"), a certified true copy of which is attached to the
original of the instant Counter-Affidavit as Annex "6", while
photocopies of the same are attached to the other copies of the
instant Counter-Affidavit.
27 At pp. 841 and 844.
28 At p. 843.
29 At p. 7 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof; see also p ,
26 thereof.

24
 42.4. Indeed, complainant Chavez is reputed

to have "failed miserablyN in the cases that

really mattered. In his Opinion entitled "Chavez

must: go pub~icN, published in the 27 June 1990

issue of the Manila Standard, 30 columnist Emil P.

Jurado stated thus:

"Much of his rejoinder was devoted

to his track record as solicitor general.
He may have more victories than defeats,
but it's generally known that in cases
that really mattered, like those on the
Hernandez doctrine, the reorganization in
the Mison case, he failed miserably.N
(Emphasis supplied)

42.5. Complainant Chavez's poor track record

did not even escape the public's eye. In the 07

July 1999 issue of the Manila Standard, a reader's

letter was quoted, to wit:

"Controversial Frank Chavez

The high profile solicitor general

of former President Cory Aquino has gone
even higher profile, denouncing the
Estrada government for failure to recover
ill-gotten wealth/prosecute the Marcoses.
In fact, he has talked about vital
evidence but refuses to share it with
government.

By his latest tantrums, is Tirante

kid Frank Chavez, the solicitor general
who wielded extraordinary powers under a
revolutionary/transition government that
should have sent the entire Marcos family
to jail, now admitting his own failures
and shortcomings.

It turns out after all that the

money could have been recovered and
Imelda Marcos thrown in jail. Why
couldn't they have done this?

30 A copy of the said article is attached as Annex "7".

25
 What should be done is to
investigate Frank Chavez for dereliction
of duty, incompetence, ignorance of the
law, etc. This may not be difficult.
After all, as my favorite columnist often
described Frank Chavez, 'He is a bright
lawyer whose spotless record is
unblemished by a single victory.'

Pray tell, Frank: How did you get to

be such a loser?,,31 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

42.6. Even worse, complainant Chavez's own

libel complaint was ordered dismissed by the

Supreme Court. In Chavez vs. Court of Appea~s,

supra, complainant Chavez himself was taken to

school by the Supreme Court due to the fact that

his libel complaint did not reflect the correct

venue, thus resulting in the dismissal of his

case: 32

"The rules on venue in article 360

may be restated thus:

1.Whether the offended party is

a public official or a private person,
the criminal action may be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the province
or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published.

2. If the offended party is a

private individual, the criminal action
may also be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province where he
actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense.

31
A copy of the sald letter which appeared on the 07 July 1999 issue of
the Manila Standard is attached as Annex "B".
32 Please also see the attached 12 February 2007 article written by
Victor C. Agustin entitled, "Be gives Chavez crash lesson", Annex "2"
hereof.

26
 42.7. Complainant Chavez's track record as

being "unblemished by victory was again broached

in a short write up from an online source: 3 3

"The better half of outgoing Makati

Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr. is leading
agi tated Makati Tuscany unit owners
against the planned 68-story Discovery
Prime a that is being built right next to
them.

Louie Barcelon-Locsin, who is

running for the congressional seat to be
vacated by her lesser half, has
prevailed on the Tuscany homeowners to
hire Aquino-era solicitor general Frank
Chavez, despite what Ambassador Roberto
R. Romulo's estimation of the lawyer's
track record as one Unblemished by
victory. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

42.8. Not any less worthy of mention are the

charges of graft and corruption made by his very

own subordinates at the OSG against complainant

Chavez. 3 4

42.8.1. It appears that in 1987,

there was a charge that complainant

Chavez took advantage of his position to

unlawfully acquire a 1982 Mercedes Benz

from the Bureau of Customs without

paying for its cost. 3 5 Worse, he

allegedly even charged the OSG for the

purchase of spare parts for the said

33 "The better Locsin takes on the Tius", COCKTALES, Reading Between the
(Head) Lines, by Victor C. Agustin, published on 19 February 2010.
[Available online: http://cocktales . ph/?cat~3&paged=4 (last accessed:
02 June 2010)]
34 At p. 10 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof.
35 At p. 10 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex n6" hereof.

27
 Mercedes Benz in the embarrassingly

measly amount of P2,447.53. 36

42.8.2. It also appears that in the

same year, complainant Chavez was

accused of involvement in the alleged

irregular purchase of overpriced office

equipment and furniture, which resulted

in an unaccounted amount of

P445, 800.00. 37

42.9. In his privilege speech, Congressman

Albano also cited the drastic change in the

lifestyle of complainant Chavez after he became

Solicitor General, as seen from his relocation to

a mansion at Ayala Alabang Village from a humble

abode in BF Homes when he was merely a practicing

lawyer, the numerous "bodyguards that accompanied

him in his sorties" and the "bullet-proofed late

model vehicles. 38

42.10. Congressman Albano then stated that

complainant Chavez is known to have' prostituted

his position as Solicitor General to malign others

and to advance his political ambitions. 39 He, in

fact, held on to his position for as long as he

could, despite the issues of impropriety thereof

even after his declaration that he would be

36
At p. 10 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex \\6 11 hereof.
37
At p. 11 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof.
38
At p. 12 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof.
39
At pp. 4 - 5 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof.

28
 running in the 1992 senatorial race,40 which he

characteristically lost.

42.11. Complainant Chavez is also well-known

to have a tendency to grab every opportunity for

grandstanding, media hype and image building, 41 as

he still does today. He was often criticized for

his frequent TV appearances to discuss pending

cases in violation of the rule on sub judice. 4 2

42.12. After his stint as the Solicitor

General, complainant Chavez was charged by Senator

Wigberto E. Tafiada ("Tafiada") with unethical

conduct after he ended up representing Security

Bank and Trust Company (" Security Bank") in

connection with the unfreezing of suspected Marcos

swiss dollar deposit in the Bankers Trust AG of

Zurich in the amount of US$4, 136, 318.00 or about

P150 million in favor of Security Bank, against

which he had lawyered when he was still in public

service. 43

42.13. Indeed, complainant Chavez is

prominent for taking on cases filed against the

40 At p. 4 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof.

41 At pp. 5 and 15 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof.
42 At p. 5 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof; please also
see the Opinion of Emil P. Jurado, published in the 16 February 1990
issue of the Manila Standard, a copy of which is attached as Annex
"9",
43 Please see the 02 August 1993 privilege speech delivered by former
Senator Tanada, at pp. 108 - 110 of the Senate Record of the Second
Regular Session dated 26 July to 05 October 1993, Vol. I, Nos. 1 - 27,
a certified true copy of which is attached to the original of the
instant Counter-Affidavit as Annex "10", while photocopies of the same
are attached to the other copies of the instant Counter-Affidavit.

29
 government despite the obvious conflict of

interest as a former Solicitor General. 44

42.14. Stark proof that complainant Chavez

still exhibits a complete disregard of the rules on

conflict of interest is the new disbarment case filed

by a former client against him and his partners. 45

43. Verily, there can hardly be any injury to the

reputation of complainant Chavez who, despite his self-

righteousness and self-serving delusions of grandeur, is well

known not only for his antics and poor track record, but more

importantly, for his improprieties, double dealings and

unprofessional conduct, if not unlawful engagements.

44. Diminished by his own immoderation, at best,

complainant Chavez's right to enjoy a reputation is thus

severely limited only to that which his present character and

conduct warrant, as held by the Supreme Court in GMA Network,

Inc. vs. Bustos, 504 SCRA 638, 654 (2006):

"And lest it be overlooked, personal hurt or

embarrassment or offense, even if real, is not
automatically equivalent to defamation. The law
against defamation protects one's interest in
acquiring, retaining and enjoying a reputation 'as
good as one's character and conduct warrant' in the
community. Clearly then, it is the community, not
personal standards, which shall be taken into
account in evaluating any allegations of libel and
any claims for damages on account thereof. "
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

44 Opinion of Emil P. Jurado, which appeared on the 11 July 1990 issue of

the Manila Standard! a copy of which is attached as Annex nil".
45 A copy of the article entitled \\Ex-c~ient seeks disbannent of Chavez",
authored by Evangeline De Vera, published at the 03 June 2010 issue of
Malaya is attached as Annex "12".

30
 45. All told, the subj ect statement is not defamatory

considering that the same could not have dishonored or

discredi ted the already much tarnished and disparaged name

and reputation of complainant Chavez. "Unblemished by

victory" is old news. That, as admitted in his own Bio-Data,

he has been intellectually dishonest and corrupt since his

schooling days, "writing term papers for other students,"

that's new. "Iron Man, Superman, Batman," "don't give my Bio-

Data to Noynoy" - even newer.

B. No Malice In Law Or In Fact

Exists In This Case.

46. As will be seen, considering the privileged character

of the subject statement, complainant Chavez bears the burden

of proving that the publication thereof was motivated by actual

46
malice. Absent such proof, the charge must fail.

47. The necessity to prove actual malice arises for two

(2) reasons: (I) the privileged character of the subj ect

statement; and (2) the fact that complainant Chavez is

irrefutably a public figure. In such cases , it is settled

that the application of the actual malice test is

47
warranted. However, other than his bare and unsubstantiated

allegation that "[b]oth malice in fact and malice in law are

present in this case", 48 complainant Chavez did not allege

even a single fact or circumstance to establish that actual

malice attended the issuance of the subject statement.

" Manue~ VS. Cruz-Pano, 172 SCRA 225, 235 (1989).

" Guingging VS. Court of Appea~s, 471 seRA 196, 217 (2005), citing
Borja~ VS. Court of Appea~s, supra.
" Par. 15.1, at p . 20 of the Complaint-Affidavit.

31
 1. Being A Fair Comment On
A Matter Of Public
Interest, The Subject
statement Constitutes
Qualifiedly Privileged
Communication.

48. The presumption of malice does not arise in the

instant case because the subject statement, even assuming

that it is defamatory, constitutes a fair commentary on a

matter of public interest, which is considered privileged

communication.

49. In the recent case of Yuchengco VS. Mani~a Chronic~e

Pub~ishing Corp., et a~., 605 SCRA 684 (2009), the Supreme

Court held that fair commentaries on matters of public

interest are considered qualifiedly privileged communication

where the presumption of malice does not exist:

~In this jurisdiction, malice in law is

provided in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code,
which also enumerates exceptions thereto:

Art. 354. Requirement of publicity. Every

defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and
justifiable motive for making it is shown, except
in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any

person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good

faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings
which are not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of their functions.

There is, thus, a presumption of malice in the

case of every defamatory imputation, where there is
no showing of a good intention or justifiable
motive for making such imputation.

32
 The exceptions provided in Article 354 are
also known as qualifiedly privileged
communications. The enumeration under said article
is, however, not an exclusive list of qualifiedly
privileged communications since fair commentaries
on matters of public interest are likewise
privileged. x x x" (At pp , 709-710; emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

50. As will be discussed, the subj ect statement falls

within the ambit of the third class of privileged

communication as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Yuchengco

vs. Manil.a Chronicl.e Publ.ishing Corp., et: al.., supra. The

pri vileged character of the subj ect statement defeats the

presumption of malice. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon

complainant Chavez to show that the publication of the

subject statement was attended by malice or ill-will. 49

51. The doctrine of fair comment was discussed by the

Supreme Court in Borjal. vs. Court: of Appeal.s, 301 SCRA 1

(1999), in this wise:

"To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters

of public interest are privileged and constitute a
valid defense in an action for libel or slander.
The doctrine of fair comment means that while in
general every discreditable imputation publicly
made is deemed false, because every man is
presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially
proved, and every false imputation is deemed
malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable
imputation is directed against a public person in
his public capacity, it is not necessarily
actionable. In order that such discreditable
imputation to a public official may be actionable,
it must either be a false allegation of fact or a
comment based on a false supposition. If the
comment is an expression of opinion, based on
established facts, then it is immaterial that the
opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it
might reasonably be inferred from the facts." (At
p. 23; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

" cf. Santos v s , Court of Appeals, 203 seRA 110 (1991).

33
 52. In this case, complainant Chavez claims that the

subject statement allegedly accused him of having a poor track

record during his tenure as the Solicitor General. Assuming

without conceding that such was the meaning alluded to in the

subj ect statement, the same cannot be considered as libelous

since complainant Chavez's track record while he was a public

official, i.e., Solicitor General, is a matter that the public

may openly discuss and comment on. Indeed, it is the primary

duty of the Solicitor General to defend the public interest as

the government's top lawyer and it cannot be gainsaid that the

citizens have every right to monitor and criticize the said

official's performance and track record.

53. This is especially true of complainant Chavez, who

occupied the sensi ti ve position of Solicitor General at a

period when the government was still recovering from the

abuses of the Marcos regime.

54. This public record of complainant Chavez became a

matter of public interest when complainant Chavez apparently

began lobbying for a position under the incoming

administration of Benigno Aquino III. Indeed, in a revealing

attempt to show he was supposedly more qualified than the

partners of CVCLAW to occupy a position in the current Aquino

cabinet, he stated, ~So, what if they belong to The Firm? I

will be firmer". 50

50 PDI article of 18 May 2010, Annex "3" hereof.

34
 55. Thus, even if it were to be considered that the

subject statement ascribed to complainant Chavez a track

record "unblemished by victory", the same constitutes fair

comment on a matter of public interest, which is considered a

qualifiedly privileged communication. Considering complainant

Chavez has not set forth any allegation or proof regarding

respondents' actual malice, the present charges should

necessarily be dismissed.

2. Malice In Law Cannot Be

Presumed Considering That
Complainant Chavez Is A
Public Figure.
r:
. (J
56. The presumption of malice also does not arise in

this case because the subject statement involves complainant

Chavez who is considered, even by his own bragging, as a

public figure and is therefore governed by a higher standard

so as not to unduly curtail the freedom of expression or

public opinion.

57. In Guingging vs. Court of Appeals, 471 SCRA 196

(2005), citing Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, supra, the

Supreme Court laid down the standard in the prosecution for

libel against a public figure:

"We considered the following proposition as

settled in this jurisdiction: that in order to
justify a conviction for criminal libel against a
public figure, it must be established beyond
reasonable doubt that the libelous statements were
made or published with actual malice, meaning
knowledge that the statement was false or with
reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.
As applied to the present petition, there are two
main determinants: whether complainant is a public
figure, and assuming that he is, whether the
publication of the subject advertisement was made
with actual malice." (At p. 218; emphasis supplied)

35
 58. The rationale for such standard when public figures

are involved, which includes former and incumbent public

officers, can be inferred from the following disquisition by

Justice Malcolm in the leading case of United States vs.

Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918):

"The interest of society and the maintenance

of good government demand a full discussion of
public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the
conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of
free speech. The sharp incision of its probe
relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in
public life may suffer under a hostile and an
unjust accusation: the wound can be assuaged with
the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer
must not to be too thin-skinned with reference to
comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the
intelligence and dignity of the individual be
exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize
defamation. Nevertheless, as an individual is less
than the State, so must expected criticism be born
for the common good. x x x

Public policy, the welfare of society, and the

orderly administration of government have demanded
protection for public opinion. The inevitable and
incontestable result has been the development and
adoption of the doctrine of privilege." (At pp. 740
- 741 and 742; emphasis supplied)

59. It cannot be disputed that complainant Chavez, a

former Solicitor General, counsel for the government, and two

(2)-time losing Senate candidate, is a public figure. As

previously discussed, complainant Chavez has even been the

subject of several news articles as well as privilege

speeches delivered before the Senate and the House of

Representatives.

60. In fact, in a recent interview with Taberna on the

television program "Umagang Kay Ganda" which was aired last

20 May 2010 via ABS-CBN Channel 2, complainant Chavez himself

36
admi tted that he is already "sika t:" or famous. From the

transcript of the said program, complainant Chavez said:

"F. Chavez:

sikat na aka bakit pa aka magpapasikat."

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

A copy of the transcript of the interview is

attached as Annex "13".

Clearly, by complainant Chavez's very own words, he

admits that he is a public figure.

61. Thus, based on the quoted ruling in Guingging vs.

Court of Appea~s, supra, for the subject statement to be

actionable, it is necessary for complainant Chavez to show

that the publication of the subject statement was impelled by

actual malice. As consistently emphasized, however, there is

nothing in the tenor of the subject statement, nor did

complainant Chavez successfully discharge his burden, to

establish actual malice.

62. In any event, being a public figure and a former

public officer, complainant Chavez cannot be onion-skinned

when his track record is scrutinized. In GMA Network, Inc.

vs. Bustos, supra, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-

known principle that public figures are discouraged from

legal action against criticisms of their actions and just

accept such criticisms as part of the Constitutional

guarantee of free speech:

37
 "We close this ponencia with the following
oft-quoted excerpts from an old but still very much
applicable holding of the Court on how public men
should deport themselves in the face of criticism:

'The interest of society and the

maintenance of good government demand a
full discussion of public affairs.
Complete liberty to comment on the
conduct of public men is a scalpel in the
case of free speech. The sharp incision
of its probe relieves the abscesses of
officialdom. Men in public life may
suffer under a hostile and unjust
accusation; the wound can be assuaged by
the balm of clear conscience. A public
officer must not be too thin-skinned with
reference to comment upon his officials
acts. Only thus can the intelligence and
dignity of the individual be exalted.
xxx.'" (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

3. No Actual Malice Exists

In The Instant Case Nor
Has Such Actual Malice
Been Shown By Complainant
Chavez.

63. Actual malice is present when it is shown that the

author of the libelous remarks made such remarks with

knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless

disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof. 51 It is present

when the author is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and

speaks not in response to a duty but merely to inj ure the

reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed. 5 2

64. In this case, to repeat, the Complaint-Affidavit

fails to allege ultimate facts showing that the publication

of the subject statement was attended by actual malice.

Neither did complainant Chavez adduce any competent evidence

to prove the same.

51 Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, 440 SCRA 541, 567 (2004).

52
Novicio vs. Aggabao, 418 SCRA 138, 143 - 144 (2003).

38
 65. To set the record straight, however, none of the

respondents herein or any member of CVCLAW have any reason to

defame or blacken the reputation of complainant Chavez. The

subject statement was only made in response to the unprovoked

and indiscriminate attacks against the partners of CVCLAW who

never held public office made by complainant Chavez, who came

out of left field accusing the former of "influence peddling-

and engaging in "transactional litigation-, among other

vilifying assertions.

III. In Any Event, The Charges Against

Us Should Be Dismissed Considering
That:

A. The Matter Charged As

Allegedly Libelous Is True.

66. In Guingging vs. Court of Appeals, supra, the

Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms that truth is a

defense in a libel charge involving public issues or public

figures:

"As adverted earlier, the guarantee of free

speech was enacted to protect not only polite
speech, but even expression in its most
unsophisticated form. Criminal libel stands as a
necessary qualification to any absolutist
interpretation of the free speech clause, if only
because it prevents the proliferation of untruths
which if unrefuted, would gain an undue influence
in the public discourse. But in order to safeguard
against fears that the public debate might be
muted due to the reckless enforcement of libel
laws, truth has been sanctioned as a defense, much
more in the case when the statements in question
address public issues or involve public figures.-
(At p. 224; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

39
 67. Similarly, in Sazon vs. Court o Appea~s, 255 SCRA

692 (1996), the Supreme Court held that when the remarks and

comments on the acts of public officers relate to the

discharge of their official duties, it will not constitute

libel if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation:

"On this point, the rule is that defamatory

remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of
public officers which are re~ated to the discharge
o their oiaia~ duties will not constitute libel
if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation. But any attack upon the private
character of the public officer on matters which
are not related to the discharge of their official
functions may constitute libel. This is clear by
express provision of Article 354, exception number
Co two (2) which refers to 'any other act performed
by public officers in the exercise of their
functions.,n (At pp. 701 - 702; emphasis supplied)

68. In this case, even assuming arguendo that the subject

statement is libelous, we cannot and should not be held liable

for the crime of libel considering that the subject statement

accurately described complainant Chavez's poor performance as a

Solicitor General in respect of the government's recovery

efforts of the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth.

69. For proper perspective, the phrase

"unblemished/untarnished by victoryn should be taken in its

proper context as widely understood by the public, which is,

that complainant Chavez has never been able to successfully

pursue a recovery case against the Marcoses with finality and

recover specific assets or amounts in favor of the

government.

40
 70. In the Complaint-Affidavit, complainant Chavez

attached his twenty-eight (28)-page Bio-Data pathetically

offering his supposed achievements, even including irrelevant

matters like his exemption from the Mandatory Continuing

Legal Education (MCLE) program,53 his participation/speaking

engagements at street rallies and demonstrations, 54 and his

music-recording endeavors. 55

71. However, none of such supposed achievements are

relevant as the phrase "unblemished/untarnished by victory"

that complainant Chavez is notoriously known for, as

discussed above, pertains to his poor performance when it

came to the government's recovery efforts of the Marcoses'

illegally amassed wealth.

72. A survey of the fifty-eight (58) cases cited in the

Complaint-Affidavit which complainant Chavez allegedly won as

Solicitor General would reveal that in all his almost five

(5) years as Solicitor General,56 none of such cases resulted

in the actual and final recovery of the Marcoses' ill-gotten

wealth in favor of the government. In fact, complainant

Chavez is misleading the Honorable Office as he in fact did

not win in some of the cases that he cited in the Complaint-

Affidavi t. 57

53 At p. 6.
5. At p , 8.
55 At p , 15.
5' P1 ease see p , 1 of the full transcript of the program Punta Par Punta,
Annex "13" hereof, where complainant Chavez stated that he occupied the
position of Solicitor General from 16 March 1987 up to 06 February 1992.
57
Un2ted Church Board vs. Sebastian, 159 SCRA 446 (1988); Zaldivar vs.
Gonzales, 160 SCRA 843 (1988); Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA
290 (1990); Metropolitan Traffic Command West Traffic District VB.
Gonong, 187 SCRA 433 (1990); Kimberly Independent Labor Union ve ,
Drilon, 185 SCRA 191 (1990).

41
 72.1. For instance, in Za~divar vs. Gonza~es,

supra, the Supreme Court nullified the criminal

informations filed by the respondent therein, then

Special Prosecutor (Tanodbayan) Raul Gonzales

("Gonzales"), whom complainant Chavez represented as

Solicitor General, and ordered Gonzales to cease and

desist from conducting investigations and filing

criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan or otherwise

exercising the powers and functions of the

Ombudsman.

72.2. Also, in Repub~ic vs. Court of

Appea~s, supra, where the issue was whether lands

forming part of forest reserves may be registered,

the Supreme Court held that while as a general

rule, lands forming part of forest reserves are

not registrable, in this case, the subject land

had been in possession of the applicants since

time immemorial. Hence, the petition for

certiorari filed by the Republic of the

Philippines, which complainant Chavez represented,

questioning the decision of the Court of Appeals

which affirmed registration was denied, thus

scoring another defeat in complainant Chavez's

track record.

72.3. Neither can the case of Kimber~y vs.

Dri~on, supra, be considered a "victory" for

complainant Chavez. In the said case, complainant

42
 Chavez failed to defend former Minister of Labor

Augusto Sanchez, who was declared by the Supreme

Court to have abused his discretion in excluding

certain employees from participating in the

certification elections of Kimberly-Clark

Philippines, Inc. The Supreme Court held therein

that the excluded employees attained regular

status one (1) year after they were employed by

the company and, thus, had a right to participate

in the certification elections.

73. What is more, some of the purported victories

claimed by complainant Chavez merely involved preliminary

incidents of the case or matters of procedure. 5 8

73.1. For instance, the case of Beltran VB.

Executive Secretary, supra, involved only the

question of whether the City Fiscal, Secretary of

Justlce and the Executive Secretary correctly

found probable cause against Louie Beltran and

Maximo Soliven in the libel case filed by

President Aquino against them. While the Supreme

Court upheld such finding of probable cause, it

merely ordered the criminal proceedings to

continue in due course.

73.2. Further, in People VB. Inting, supra,

where the issue was whether a preliminary

investigation conducted by a Provincial Election

58 Beltran vs. Executive Secretary, 167 SCRA 393 (1988); People vs.
Inting, 187 SCRA 789 (1990); Chavez vs. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282
(1991); Silverio vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 760 (1991).

43
Supervisor involving election offenses have to be

coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor before

the Regional Trial Court may take cognizance of

the investigation and determine whether probable

cause exist, the Supreme Court simply reversed the

quashal of the information and ordered the trial

court to proceed with the hearing of the case with

deliberate speed until its termination.

73.3. Then in Chavez vs. Sandi ganbayan ,

supra, complainant Chavez prevailed merely on an

issue of procedure. In this case, complainant

Chavez argued that he may not be sued by way of

counterclaim for damages in his capacity as

Solicitor General in an action against Enrile

before the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court held

that Enrile's claim for damages under Article 32

of the Civil Code does not constitute a compulsory

counterclaim and that to vindicate his claim,

Enrile must file a separate case for damages

against complainant Chavez.

73.4. Moreover, in Si~verio vs. Court of

Appea~s, supra, where Silverio questioned the

trial court's order granting the motion of the

People of the Philippines and directing the

Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel his

passport or deny his application and the

Commission on Immigration to prevent him from

leaving the country[ the Supreme Court held that

44
 pursuant to Article II I, Section 6 of the

Constitution, the liberty of travel may be

impaired even without court order.

74. Parenthetically, it is not even certain whether

complainant Chavez can fairly claim credit for all the cases

allegedly won by the government when he was Solicitor

General. Indeed, it may have been pure serendipity that the

decision was handed down while he was already occupying the

position. For instance, in BASECO vs. PCGG, 150 SCRA 181

(1987), which was decided on 27 May 1987, complainant Chavez

could have possibly not played a key role in the handling of

such case considering that he in fact assumed the position of

Solicitor General only on 16 March 1987, or two (2) months

prior to the promulgation of the said decision.

75. Verily, none of the supposed victories of

complainant Chavez while he was sitting as the Solicitor

General inured to the benefit of the government in terms of

((
.~
'.

'J recovery of the illegally amassed wealth by the Marcoses.

Hence, his critics denounced him as the Solicitor General

whose track record is ftunblemished by victory."

76. As previously discussed, complainant Chavez is

indeed reputed to have less victories in the cases that

really mattered. 5 9 His poor track record during his stint as

Solicitor General is widely known not only by those in

government service, 60 but also by media pract.Lt i.one r s f and

59 Opinion of Emil P. Jurado entitled "Chavez must go pub~ic", published

in the 27 June 1990 issue of the Manila Standard, Annex ft7" hereof.

45
the public in general.~

77. Considering the truth of the questioned portion of

the subject statement, which involved issues of public

concern and the act (or inaction) of a public figure, the

same is constitutionally-protected speech and in itself

warrants the dismissal of the instant complaint. As held in

Guingging vs. Court o Appeals, supra:

"As it has been established that complainant

was a public figure, it was incumbent upon the
prosecution to prove actual malice on the part of
Lim and petitioner when the latter published the
article subj ect matter of the complaint. Set
otherwise, the prosecution must have established
beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants knew
the statements in the advertisement was false or
nonetheless proceeded with reckless disregard as
to publish it whether or not it was true.

It should thus proceed that if the statements

made against the public figure are essentially
true, then no conviction for libel can be had. Any
statement that does not contain a provably false
factual connotation will receive full
consti tutional protection. An examination of the
records of this case showed that the precis of
information contained in the questioned
publication were actually true. xxx

x x x

From the foregoing, it is clear that there

was nothing untruthful about what was published in
the Sunday Post. The criminal cases listed in the
advertisement as pending against the complainant
had indeed been filed. It may have been
inconvenient for the complainant that these
matters may have been divulged, yet such

60 At pp. 7 and 26 of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof; "The
better Locsin takes on the Tius l1 , COCKTALES 1 Reading Between the
(Head) Lines, by Victor C. Agustin, published on 19 February 2010.
[Available online: http://cocktales . ph/?cat=3&paged=4 (last accessed:
02 June 2010)].
51 04 February 1992 issue of the Philippine Times Journal, quoted at p.
of the Albano privilege speech, Annex "6" hereof; "The better Locsin
takes on the Tius", COCKTALES, Reading Between the (Head) Lines, by
Victor C. Agustin, published on 19 February 2010. [Available online:
http://cocktales.ph/?cat=3&paged-4 (last accessed: 02 June 2010)J.
62
cf. a reader's letter which appeared on the 07 July 1999 issue of the
Manila Standard, Annex "8" hereof.

46
 information hardly falls within any realm of
privacy complainant could invoke, since the
pendency of these criminal charges are actually
matters of public record." (At p. 219 and 223;
emphasis and underscoring supplied)

B. The Subject Statement Was

Published To Defend The Honor
And Reputation Of The
Partners Of CVCLAW Who Never
Held Public Office.

78. As held in Vasquez vs. Court of Appea~s, supra,

when the allegedly defamatory statement is made against a

public official with respect to the discharge of his official

duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is

shown, the charges against the respondents should be

dismissed:

"The question is whether from the fact that

the statements were defamatory, malice can be
presumed so that it was incumbent upon petitioner
to overcome such presumption. Under Art. 361 of
the Revised Penal Code, if the defamatory
statements is made against a public official with
respect to the discharge of his official duties
and functions and the truth of the allegation is
shown, the accused will be entitled to an
acquittal even though he does not prove that the
imputation was published with good motives and for
justifiable ends." (At p , 473; emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

79. The truthfulness of the subj ect statement having

been shown in the foregoing discussion, there is no basis to

hold us responsible for the crime of libel allegedly

commi tted against complainant Chavez. Nonetheless, the fact

that the subj ect statement was published with good motives

and for justifiable ends is plain.

47
 80. As previously pointed out, the publication of the

subject statement was made in defense of the honor and

reputation of the partners of CVCLAW who never held public

office against the unsolicited and vicious attacks of

complainant Chavez against the latter. As seen from the

foregoing narration, it appears that complainant Chavez has

embarked on a mission to destroy the good name and reputation

of CVCLAW and all its partners who have painstakingly built

the same for a period of thirty (30) long years.

81. To paraphrase Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando,

the law cannot ignore a man's inherent right to have his

reputation remain free from unjustified and unwarranted

imputations of wrongdoing. 63

82. As early as in the case of People vs. Chua Hiong,64

the Court of Appeals has already recognized the right of an

individual to defend himself against defamatory attacks:

"Self-defense is man's In a
inborn right.
i>
,( \ physical assault retaliation becomes unlawful
'--0
after the attack has ceased, because there would
be no further harm to repel. But that is not the
case when it is aimed at a person's good name.
Once the aspersion is cast its sting clings and
the one thus defamed may avail himself of all
necessary means to shake it off. He may hit back
with another libel which, if adequate, will be
justified.

x x x

x x x Failing to secure his end, aggrieved

party decided to air his supposed grievances in the
press, as he did in fact, publishing the letter
mentioned above at which appellant retaliated with
the allegedly libelous article. x x x

63 Concurring op~n~on in Babst VB. National Intelligence Board, 133 SeRA

316 (1984).
" C.A. O.G. No. 10418-R, 20 October 1954.

48
 For all the foregoing, we find that the libel
in question is justified and appellant is,
therefore, acquitted with costs de officio."
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

83. In Ruiz VS. Uco~, 153 SCRA 16 (1987), the Supreme

Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court which held that

the accused had a right to self-defense against an

unprovoked, unj ustified and libelous attack on her honor,

honesty, character and reputation:

"We are, therefore, constrained to dismiss

the present appeal. Atty. Ruiz has more than had
his day in court. The then court of first instance
acquitted Mrs. Dcol and stated in the dispositive
portion of its decision that her guilt was not
established beyond reasonable doubt. A review of
the court's findings, however, indicates that the
disputed Answer of Mrs. Dcol in the administrative
case contains no libel. As stated by the trial
court, 'As will be shown later, it appears that it
is this complaint signed by Agustina, but authored
by Atty. Ruiz, that is libelous and not the
respondent's answer.' (Emphasis supplied). The
court found the charges against Dcol, if not
malicious, at least reckless in the face of proven
facts and circumstances.

The trial court stated.

'Analyzing defendant's answer Exh.

'5', even with meticulous care, the Court
did not find any defamatory imputation
which causes dishonor or discredit to the
complainant. She was the victim of an
unprovoked, unjustified and libelous
attack against her honor, honesty,
character and reputation; she has a right
to self-defense, which she did in her
answer, to protect her honesty and
integrity and the very job upon which her
family depend for their livelihood. Every
sentence in her answer (Exh. '5') is
relevant, and constitutes privileged
matter. She did not go further than her
interest or duties require. She did not
go beyond explaining what was said of her
in the complaint for the purpose of
repairing if not entirely removing the
effects of the charge against her. She

49
 had absolutely no motive to libel Atty.
Ruiz who, by the way, cast the first
stone. ' (Amended Record on Appeal,
pp. 10-11)

WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by appellant

Jesus B. Ruiz is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
petition filed by petitioner Encarnacion Uco I is
likewise DISMISSED for patent lack of merit." (At
p. 20; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

84. In this case, it was indeed complainant Chavez who,

without any justifiable reason, cast the first stone when he

publicly and unceremoniously accused CVCLAW and its members

of ~influence peddling" and ~transactional litigation", among

others. Thus, even if the subject statement were to be held

(7-
'-U defamatory, it would have been an extremely trifling

statement compared to the malicious unfounded accusations

complainant Chavez blindly and repeatedly hurled at CVCLAW.

85. Incidentally, complainant Chavez has no business

attacking the partners of CVCLAW who have sacrificed their

health and career for public service.

86. The foregoing circumstances negate the presence of

actual malice. No proof having been shown that the issuance

of the subject statement was prompted by a desire to inflict

unj ustifiable harm on complainant Chavez's reputation, the

instant Complaint-Affidavit must necessarily be dismissed.

87. Thus, even if it is not required to be shown in the

instant case, the foregoing circumstances prove that the

publication of the subject statement was made with good

motives and for justifiable ends. To reiterate, respondents

never stated that complainant Chavez's record was unblemished

50
by victory, but even took his side by emphasizing that such

criticism of his record is unkindly called unblemished.

88. All told, it becomes indubitable that there is no

probable cause to engender a well-founded belief that the

offense of libel was committed against complainant Chavez.

89. In light of all the foregoing, there is no reason

to proceed with the preliminary investigation of the instant

case, considering that the allegations contained therein do

not sufficiently show that a criminal offense or violation of

a penal law has been committed as to warrant the criminal

prosecution of respondents herein. As the Supreme Court held

in Novicio vs. Aggabao, supra:

"Where it appears from the allegations in the

information that the person accused of libel acted
in good faith and for justifiable ends in making
the allegedly libelous imputations, there is no
need to prolong the proceedings to the prejudice
of the accused. Ligaya Novicio is certainly
entitled to the dismissal of the case against her.
She has suffered enough. There is no point in
proceeding with a defective information that can
never be the basis of a valid conviction. In this
case, the facts alleged in the informations did
not constitute libel. The court a quo should have
granted the motion to quash filed by petitioner."
(At pp. 144 145; emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

90. In R.R. Paredes vs. Ca2i2ung, 517 SCRA 369 (2007),

the Supreme Court, following a consistent line of

jurisprudence, emphasized the duty of investigating

prosecutors to dismiss cases once it is ascertained that no

probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the

guilt of the accused, in light of their duty to secure the

innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution:

51
 "The main function of a government prosecutor
during his conduct of preliminary investigation is
to determine the existence of probable cause and to
file the corresponding information should he find
it to be so. The purpose of a preliminary
investigation is to secure the innocent against
hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to
protect him from an open and public accusation of
crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a
public trial, and also to protect the state from
useless and expensive trials. A preliminary
investigation serves not only the purposes of the
State. More important, it is a part of the
guarantees of freedom and fair play which are
birthrights of all who live in this country. It is,
therefore, imperative upon the fiscal to relieve
the accused from the pain of going through a trial
once it is ascertained that no probable cause
exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt
of the accused." (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

91. Accordingly, it behooves the Honorable Office to

dismiss the instant case where no probable caus~ exists to

form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the respondents

herein. 65

92. Indeed, the speedy, orderly and efficient

administration of justice would be subserved by the immediate

dismissal of the instant Complaint-Affidavit as it would be a

futile endeavor to conduct a preliminary investigation where

no crime has been committed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this 16 t h day of

June 2010 in the City of Manila, Metro Manila.

65 R.R. Pare d es VS. Calilung, supra; Col1antes VS. Marcelo, 530 seRA 142,
156 - 157 (2007).

52
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 16 t h day of June
2010 in the City of Manila, Metro Manila.

~~ ue.tJ!.L...f)-
T~ODORE M. VILLANUEVA
Senior State Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the

affiant and that I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed
and understood his affidavit.

~~~~
Senior State Prosecutor
Counte.r;-RRA dated 16June2010 [FIN]
e RER nefs

53
"Francisco I. Chavez vs. Al.ejandro Al.xonso E. Navarro, et a1.."
I.S. No. XVI-INV-10E-00143, Department of Justice, Manila

INDEX OF ANNEXES

l~~~][=--~~~==-~~~___~--=_~~~=-~~=: =-=-~~~J
"1" Affidavit
Fernandez
dated 11 June 2010 of
_
Atty. Victor c.

"2" 12 February 2007 article written by Victor c.

Agustin entitled, "sc gives Chavez crash lesson"
"3" POI article of 18 May 2010: "Ex-So1.gen Tags 'The
Firm' in Drive vs New CJ"
"4" Full text of the subject statement
"5" Enrile privilege speech
"6" Albano privilege speech
"7" Opinion entitled "Chavez must go pub1.ic" , published
in the 27 June 1990 issue of the Manila Standard
"8" Reader's letter which appeared on the 07 July 1999
issue of the Manila Standard
"9" Opinion of Emil P. Jurado, published in the 16
February 1990 issue of the Manila Standard
"10" Tai'iada privilege speech
"11" Opinion of Emil P. Jurado, which appeared on the 11
July 1990 issue of the Manila Standard
"12" "Ex-c1.ient seeks disbarment ox Chavez", authored by
Evangeline De Vera, published in the 03 June 2010
issue of Malaya
"13" Transcript of Punta Par Punta

1
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
ANNEX." i
MAKATI CITY, METRO MANILA ) S. S.

AFFIDAVIT

I, ATTY. VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, of legal age, Filipino,

with address at 1570 Princeton Street, Wack-Wack Village,
Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, after having been duly
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. I am a lawyer by profession, having been engaged

in the practice of law for the past thirty-eight (38)
years.

o 1.1. I earned my law degree at the

University of the Philippines College of Law ("UP
College of Law") in 1971, where I was ranked
tenth (loth) in the graduating class. While at law
school, I was a member of the Order of the Purple
Feather, the UP College of Law's honor society.

1.2. I started in the private practice of

law in 1972 at the law office founded by my

o father, the Estanislao A.

I was an Associate until 1982.
Fernandez Law Offices.

1.3. From 1983 until 1987, the Estanislao A.

Fernandez Law Offices was renamed Fernandez,
Fernandez & Ambrosio law firm. At this time, I
was already a Partner. Later, it was renamed
Fernandez and Velasco. From 1988 until 1992, with
the addition of a new partner, the law office was
renamed Fernandez, Velasco & Grapilon Law
Offices.

1.4. Thereafter, from 1993 until 2002, the

law office changed its name to Fernandez, Pacheco
& Dizon Law Offices.

1
 1. 5. I joined the government in 03 March
2003 where I served as the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon with the Office of the Ombudsman until 03
March 2010.

2. Recently, I came across news articles where

Francisco I. Chavez (" Frank") , a fraternity brother
("brod" ) in the Sigma Rho Fraternity ("Sigma Rho" )
viciously attacked the name and reputation of Attys.
Avelino J. Cruz, Jr. ("Cruz") , Simeon V. Marcelo
("Marcelo"), the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo and Angangco Law
Offices ("CVCLaw") and its partners. Frank's assault did
not end in print. He continued with his attacks on national

o television
CVCLaw as
and radio,
"influence-peddlers"
maliciously labeling
and portraying
partners
them to be
of

power hungry. Worse, Frank, who obviously started the

attacks, had the temerity to sue Cruz, Marcelo along with
other Name Partners, F. Arthur L. Villaraza ("Villaraza"),
Raoul R. Angangco ("Angangco") and a Senior Partner, Atty.
Alejandro Alfonso E. Navarro ("Navarro"), for the crime of
libel.

3. As a fellow lawyer and fraternity brod of Frank,

o this did not sit well with me.

against fellow lawyers is simply inexcusable and smacks of
Frank's unprovoked tirade

pure opportunism and ingratitude. It is pure opportunism

because Frank obviously took advantage of the appointments
season to draw attention to his pompous self by viciously
attacking Marcelo and Cruz, CVCLaw and its partners. It is
pure ingratitude because I know for a fact that Frank would
never have finished law school were it not for, among
others, the generosity of the very person he is suing,
Villaraza.

3.1. I have known Frank since law school,

specifically, since 1967 when he joined the Sigma
Rho.

2
 3.2. Frank, as we all knew him then, was a
dirt-poor ~probinsyano" from Negros Occidental.
At the time, he was dorming at the cheapest on-
campus dormitory called Narra. He was wallowing
in abject poverty and looked the part. Frank
constantly whined about the abject poverty of his
family in Negros. While there is nothing wrong
with being poor and in fact a nobility in rising
from poverty, what disgusted me was that he was
blaming his family for his sorry state and wanted
to disown them. In fact, instead of being proud
of his roots, he repeatedly told brods in law
school, including me, that he would never forgive

o his father for being poor.

3.3. That is why I am completely surprised

at how he describes his late parents now in his
twenty-eight (28)-page resume. In his resume,
Frank now claims that his late father was a
~well-decorated war hero", and his late mother, a
"we l Le-Loved public school teacher and mother of
ten". This certainly was not his tone during law
school when he all but spat on their names. While

o anyone would be proud to have such fine parents,

not Frank. He loathed his poverty and insanely
blamed it on his father.

3.4. In 1968, I became Sigma Rho's head, or

its Grand Archon. During this time, Frank
approached me. He was very distraught. Frank told
me that he would no longer see me the following
year (his third year) in law school because he
was about to drop out of sophomore year. After
cursing and again blaming them for this sorry
state, he said his parents could no longer afford
to pay for his education.

3
 3.5. As the Grand Archon of Sigma Rho, I
took it upon myself to approach some of the more
privileged members of the fraternity, in
particular, Villaraza and the late Victor R.
Sumulong ("Sumulong"). I asked them if they were
willing to contribute money to support Frank in
his remaining semesters in the UP College of Law.
I even told Villaraza and Sumulong that it would
be worth helping Frank because he was doing well
academically.

3.6. Villaraza, who was then still in his

pre-law, and Sumulong did not even hesitate and
agreed with my proposal. From the money
(j
contributed mainly by the three of us, Villaraza,
Sumulong and myself, I established a Sigma Rho
Scholarship Fund and donated the same to the UP
College of Law for the benefit of deserving
students, including Frank. The Sigma Rho
Scholarship Fund was regularly funded by
contributions from other brods and mainly through
substantial contributions from Villaraza and
myself.

3.7. Frank received significant amounts from

the scholarship fund. I know it was substantial
because it not only covered tuition fees, but
also included monthly allowance, book allowance
and dormitory expenses of Frank from his third to
fourth year at the UP College of Law.

3.8. Frank was thus a full-time law student

and never had to work to pay for the expenses of
his law education on account of the full support
that he received from the scholarship fund we
established.

4
 3. 9. Further, the Sigma Rho even funded the
campaign of Frank when he ran for a position in
the student council.

3.10. In due course, Frank was able to

obtain his law degree in 1971 at the UP College
of Law, even graduating as Cum Laude, through the
collective resources of Villaraza, Sumulong,
myself, and those of the other brods who
contributed occasionally to the scholarship fund.
I informed Frank who his benefactors were. I
shared this piece of information with him because
I felt he needed to know who helped him out.

o 3.11. While I did not expect anything in

return for the financial help we gave Frank, and
neither did Villaraza, we were sorely
disappointed by the fact that Frank thanked no
one among those who helped him finish law school.
Instead, Frank continued to openly declare that
"he will never forgive his father for being
poor."

3.12. Only a true ingrate like Frank would,

therefore, publicly call his brods "bad and
greedy". Only a true ingrate like Frank would
file criminal charges against Villaraza who in
great measure, made it possible for Frank to
finish law school.

4. In addition, on 01 June 2010, I requested for a

copy of the libel complaint filed by Frank against
Villaraza, Cruz, Marcelo, Angangco and Navarro.

4.1. Upon reading the Complaint-Affidavit

and its Annexes, in particular Frank's twenty
eight (28)-page resume, I was completely
disappointed, not to mention extremely insulted,

5
 that he did not even acknowledge that he is a
member of the Sigma Rho or that his brods were
responsible for putting him to law school. To me,
it is clear that Frank uses his membership in the
Sigma Rho only when it suits him much like what
he did to survive his days at the law school, and
conveniently dumps the fraternity when it will
not be to his own self-interest.

4.2. Frank also mentioned that he was "UP

Man of the Year" in 1969. However, I do not
recall any particular occasion in 1969 that Frank
was recognized as the "UP Man of the Year", as he

\,~)' was never the top of the class nor did he

accomplish anything extraordinary as to receive
such distinction. In fact, during law school,
Frank did not have many friends because no one
really cared much for his company. He also kept
to himself because he was ashamed of being poor.
Moreover, to the best of my recollection, I am
not aware of any such award given by the
University of the Philippines.

4.3. Further, there is no truth to Frank's

claim in his resume that he was never able to
purchase a single law book during his entire four
(4)-year law course at the UP College of Law
considering that, as stated above, the amounts
that Villaraza, Sumulong and myself contributed
to the Sigma Rho scholarship fund covered the
expenses for his law books.

5. I am attesting to the truth of the foregoing

allegations and for whatever legal purpose that it may be
used.

6
 ,
,1 .. '

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

11 t h day of June 2010 in Makati City, Metro Manila.

ATTYki/h Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /~ day of June

2010 at Makati City, Metro Manila, affiant being personally
known to me and exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. 15000856 issued on 18 January 2010
at Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila and presenting a
competent evidence of his identity bearing his photograph
and signature, i.e., Driver's License No. N15-82-004286
issued by the Land Transportion Office.

Doc. No. ci??";

() Page No.
Book No.
zt; ;
.z ;
Series of 2010.

c)

7
ANNEX~Ht"
 ANNEX" ,

.".\oj-:.' ,'" ..,

7 -
'litudzy.May 18,::1:010 5sectro~ I Vol.:ZS I oI'{CI. rn
** PI8

'x'':'Sol,Gen tags
'E, of the Judicial and Bar Council.
. He also Said that CciIz andMarcelo could not
,"The ,Fl'rm' I'Il , Preseilc tliemseIties
deliverance"in as "crusaders or apostles
the controversyoverthe of '.
appoint-
ment of ,Chief Justice RenaIO Corona because
:,~.,r'I'Ve, vs new C'T ~
:they ':Nf[re'rilnking members
ministra1iehwhenitwas ofbyscandals.
rocked the Arroyo ad-

:~yPhili1J C.Tubeza Inri~~~c~~peddling

Cha'(ez;' th~' solicitor general during the ,CRUZ CHAVEZ
IS THEFIRMMPdGNG A COMEBACK? admfuisttaticin, of President Corazon
. ,Form~ Solicitor Genecal Francisco Aquino, allegedtbat The Firm' (known as should riot be allowed to spread their ven-
Chavezyesterdayassailedwhat he said the ViIlaraza'~z Marcelo & Angangco law om of illegal transactionsin the new ad-
office) Wl\S supposedly engaged iiJ. "influ- ministration,"he said.
I '_ were aitemptsbymembers ofTheFirm, "
0 a law ,office formerly associated" with
the,Fi;'Sl; Couple, to return to the coni-
ence-peddling" and "illegal transactions" "We should also remember that Avelino
liefore it had a falling out WJ;th P,resident Cruz is there for Mar Roxas and not for
I dorsofpowerwith the inipendinginau- !'4acaP'lgal-Arroyo. NoynoyAquino,"Chavezadded.
'gu:tation oftheAquinopresidency Asked,about Chavez's allegations, Ccuz
, Chavez said that former Defense last night declin:ed to comment and said he Appointments
s,ecretw;y Avelino ."Nononif', Cruz JJ: liWould issuehis'replytoday. Ci:ui lihil::~i. !, The fcirme;~~O!ipt'lf..g:~E'..~;al said persons
# eyeingthe post ofjusdce secretary 10 have,beenvery criti~al of MSl\fiqJf.~- :linked to Tb,~'i\lil:!l1!,W,~Ill\sP asking memj.
:While: former Ombudsman Simeon pointmentofCoronaas the new chi~U'Si:ice. -bers of the legal co""",nnity if they wanted
Marce!crwantedto become a member "Let us put this in proper perspective. I to be judges of the RegionalTrial Courerot
, , filed four plunder raps against GMA (Ms the Court of Appeals and ,if former Special
An"oyo) .buc Ombudsman Marcelo did not' Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio was ac-
lift a' finger on these. In fact, he inhibited ceptable as an Ombudsman. .
himself, an, indication that he was biased Chavezsaid he was .ready to present the
, for Gloria,"Chavezsaid. " personswho were asked. "
, He added that Ccuz was also' Ms ArrOYo's as
"'):'hey should not behave if they own'
chiefpresidentiallegal counseland later de- the Philippines.It's. asif theyre the onesde-
i fense secretary'wheil the Arroyo administra cidingwhere the spoils go,"he said.
. lion waS ,rocked by controversies like. the "So"whatif they belong to The Firm? I
"Hello Garci" scandal, the Naia Terminal 3 will be fimier,"he added.
o takeoverand the issuance ofExecutive Order '
, No.464, wbichallowed government officials Supreme error
toavoidattending ccngresslonalheartngs, But Chavez said the Supreme Court
erred in allowingCorona'sappointment.
Not asqueak "I would like to make it clear that the
'l\ll these lawyers Who are now maldng general assessment of all lawyersis thatJ;h$
these noises did not make a squeakthen, not Supreme Court committed a supreme error
evenawhimperofprotesn'[Chavez said. in allowing that appointment. It was en'
"Why are they makingnoise now? They gagedinjudicial legisladon and it, in effect,
are positioning.themselves for theincom- amended me Constitution,"he said.
ing adniInistration?"he added. ' Chavezsaid the "midnighf" appointment
. Chavezsaid that Ccuz and Marcelo were ofCorona could he nullifiedthrough an ex-
"t'ighting':"9qrona,because theywere rooting , ecutive order.
for Justice 'i\.ritonio Carpio, a former mem- The new administration could evenfile a
ber of The'Finn, to becomeChiefJustice. "testcase"to overturnthe S].lpreme Courtrul-
,''If tha,t happens, then happy d'lYs are ingthatallowedtheappoinrment,headdeli
liere again. They should realize that their' ''They could file a test, case so that the
influence-peddling days are over. They Supreme Court can redeem itself,"he said.
 .ANNEXJJ
20 May 2010

There is nothing new in the latest attacks by Former Solicitor General

Frank Chavez against some of the Firm's Partners. The malice and viciousness of
language is vintage Frank Chavez. The timing of these attacks is also not
surprising. It is appointments season for the incoming administration and
demolition jobs against perceived appointees to government are par for the course.

But a line has to be drawn when the libel extends to private individuals and
firms. Atty. Chavez crossed that line. The Law Firm of Villaraza Cruz Marcelo
and Angangco is first and foremost a professional law partnership. In its thirty
years of existence, it has dedicated itself to the purely professional aspects of law
practice and has built an enviable reputation, even among its peers in the industry,
for competence. The involvement of some of its Partners in public service is
something the Firm is justifiably proud of but this does not detract from the core
mission of the Firm to provide its clients with prompt, quality service.

There is thus no excuse for Atty. Chavez's bitter tirades against the Firm.
No good and justifiable motives can possibly be behind this; only professional
jealousy or perhaps an eye towards the DOJ post, or both can put some sense into
his bizarre and irrational fixation with the Firm. If so, he is better off sending his
resume to the president-elect's search committee, so that it may stand side by side
with those Partners in the Firm he deludes himself to be equal with. His resume
should include, for proper perspective, his record as Solicitor General, which has
been unkindly called "unblemished" by those in the know.

ALEJANDRO ALFONSO E. NAVARRO

 (.

ANNEX ,,~.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
SENATE

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

APRIL 10 TO JUNE 8, 1989
o
VOLUME IV, NOS. 107"143

Prepared by the Debate Reporters Division

and the
Legislative Publications Staff
Legislative Operations, Secretariat of the Senate
. under the supervision of
SECRETARY EDWIN P. ACOBA dltTlFIED TRUE COPl

AN~S
DIRECTOR :m:
IC.EG. RECORDS it ARCH/Vee .v'
.!l\!1~~ ._ .. __ . _
> ,
Thursday, June 8,1989 RECORD OF THE SENATE
Introduced by Senator Romulo.
The President. Referred to the Committees on Labor,
Employment and Human Resources Development; and Social
Justice, Welfare and Development.
The Secretary. Proposed Senate Resolution No. 521, entitled
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMIITEE ON
BANKS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND
CURRENCIES, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, TO
INQUIRE AND LOOK INTO COLLATERAL
FREE CREDIT FACILITIES TO SMALL FARM
ERS AND SMALL ENTREPRENEURS IN THE
COUNTRYSIDE.
Introduced by Senator Romulo.
The President. Referred to the Committees on Banks,
o Financial Institutions and Currencies; and Rural Development.
The Secretary. Proposed Senate Resolution No. 522, entitled
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON
AGRARIAN REFORM, IN AID OF LEGISLA-
TION, TO EVALUATE AND REVIEW THE
ONE- YEAR PERFORMANCE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
SINCE THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW (CARL)
IN THE LIGHT OF THE GARCHITORENA
SCANDAL AND STRONG CRITICISMS
RAISED BY THE CONGRESS FOR PEOPLE'S
AGRARIAN REFORM (CPAR).
o Introduced by Senator Maceda.
The President. Referred to the Committee on Agrarian
Reform.
COMMITTEE REPORT
The Secretary. Committee Report No. 660, submitted by
the Committee on National Defense and Security, on Senate Bill
No. 329, introduced by Senator Romulo, entitled
AN ACT TO CONSOLIDATE, REVISE AND
CODIFY THE VARIOUS VETERANS LAWS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
.recommending its approval in consolidation with Senate Bill
Nos. 190,481,1041 and 1060.
Committee Report
Sponsors: Senators Romulo, Maceda, Tamano, Gonzales,
Lina, Jr., Mercado and Angara
The President. To the Calendar for Ordinary Business.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF SENATOR ENRILE
(On Hacienda Luisita)
Senator Enrile. Mr. President, I would like to ask the
permission of the Chamber to speak on a mailer of personal and
collective privilege.
I was a lawyer of Tabacalera some years back, and I
participated in the conclusion of the sale of Hacienda Luisita to
the Cojuangco family sometime in the late 1950's. And so, today,
the Hacienda Luisita is placed under the purview of the Land
Reform Program of the Republic under the laws that we have
adopted in this Chamber, as well as under the issuances of the
President. So many people have been asking me why I have been
silent about the manner by which Hacienda Luisita was placed
under the ambit of the Land Reform Program; and they said:
"Could it be that you refuse to make any statement because you
were at one time connected with this transaction?"
And so, Mr. President, in order to clear myself, as well as to
bring home to this Chamber the talks in the coffee shops that this
Chamber is reluctant to look into the manner by which Hacienda
Luisita was placed under the Land Reform Program, I am now
constrained to stand up before this Chamber and ask permission
not to consume the privilege hour, but to speak on a matter of
personal privilege on this issue.
The President. Please proceed, Although, I would like to
remind the distinguished Minority Floor Leader that there is a
resolution already passed, I think; authored by Senator Osmeila
regarding the Hacienda Luisita, There will be a commitiee that
will look into that particular matter.
Senator Enrile. Mr. President, I am looking at this problem
not from the viewpoint of making it a model for land reform for
corporate landowners but, precisely, to denounce it because it is
no land reform at all, and it is no model to be copied by anybody.
Because, it injures the very interest of the fanner- beneficiaries
who ought to have been benefited by the Land Reform Program if
sincerely implemented by the Aquino government.
And so, with the permission of the Chair, may I proceed.
The President. Just a moment. Senator Guingona would
like to raise a question.
Senator Guingona. Mr.. President, we were scheduled to
have the occasion to deliver a speech during the Privilege Hour. I
CSWhAED TItUI COP.\'
1463
{).;t8u~
ANTONIA P. SARItO.
DmECrOR :m:
t:EG,RECO~DS" ARC"'VIt At;
 Question of Privilege ofSen. Enrile RECORD OF THE SENATE
wanted to make it brief so that we could accommodate the
distinguished Gentleman. I am just wondering whether this
personal privilege will eat up the Privilege Hour.
Senator Enrile. Mr. President, the matter of personal
privilege has precedence over all other businesses of the Chamber.
This will not eat up the time allotted for the Privilege Hour. This
is a matter of personal privilege of a Member of the Chamber to
speak on a matter that involves him. And >;0, I am claiming the
privilege.
Mr. President, I have not abused the time of this Chamber. In
fact, the Record will show that this is my first, or, maybe, the
second time to speak on the Floor since we started our session
aftl<lj the last recess.
The President. The Chair has already decided to recognize
the Minority Floor Leader on a question of personal privilege.
Senator Enrile. Thank you, Mr. President
Senator Guingona. Without eating up into the Privilege
Hour, Mr. President
The President. Without encroaching.
Senator Enrile. Mr. President, the revolutions and other
forms of turmoil which have shaken our country, invariably have
been rooted in agrarian unrest,
The major armed uprisings and rebellions during the Spanish
colonial period resulted from peasant discontent. Spanish
colonization, writes one of our historians, deprived Filipinos of
their ancestral lands and reduced more and more of them to the
status of tenants or leaseholders, subject to the exploitation and
physical abuse of landowners.
The establishment of the feudal institutions ofthe encomienda
and the hacienda, particularly the friar lands, were yokes that
burdened our forebears through the centuries.
When the Americans started to consolidate their rule of the
Philippines at the turn of the century, they were confronted by the
clamor of the people for the breakup of haciendas, especially the
friar estates, and their redistribution among those who tilled the
land.
So the Americans adopted as a policy of attraction the
purchase of some of these friar lands and their redistribution
among the tillers.
The program met stiff resistance from the landowners.
Understandably, they made sure they held to the choice landed
1464
Vol. IV, No. 143
estates and sold to the insular government only those lands not
conducive to farming.
This was the situation in the early 1900's.
Since then, other grandiose attempts have been made to
address the agrarian problem.
In the early 1960's, we had the Macapagal Code of Agrarian
Reforms (R. A. 3844). In the early 1970's, we had the Marcos
handwritten decree, P. D. No. 27, and last year came R.A. No.
6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Land Reform Law or CARL ..
CARL, which envisioned a comprehensive land reform
program (CARP), once more raised the expectations of our people.
CARP is supposed to be the centerpiece of the Aquino
administration's social justice program.
This weekend, Mr. President, we will celebrate the first
anniversary of CARL. Much to our disappointment, however,
there is not much cause for celebration.
Recent developments do not augur well for the success of the
program. CARP, in fact, in my humble opinion, is in extreme
danger of collapsing and failing.
The program has been sabotaged, not by the insurgents, not
by other so-called enemies of the State, but by the very people in
the Aquino administration entrusted with its implementation.
The Garchitorena scam, now the focus of national outrage,
may yet be the tip of the iceberg. Other similar transactions in
ollier parts of the nation have been reported. Only this morning,
two were, at least, mentioned: one, in Salvador Benedicto town in
Negros Occidental; and another one, in Nueva Ecija. involving
not just a few thousand pesos, but multi-hundred million pesos.
On the Garchitorena scam, I have publicly offered to
prosecute personally or through the Nacionalista Party the case
against those involved if President Aquino is not willing to do so.
The records so far available would suggest to me that a frustrated
crime has been committed. At least, some of the public officials
involved can be charged with violation of R. A. No. 3019, the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, under Section 3,
subparagraphs E and G. And if collusion or conspiracy is proved,
the public officials and the private entities and persons involved
could all be prosecuted since in a transaction attended by
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
While the Garchitorena scam has for weeks now held the
spotlight, another transaction under CARP has been gradually
coming into focus. Unlike theGarchitorena scam which exploded
aRT/FlED TRUE COP~
~
!lIi'!'UIN1A P. BARROS
11J'I1:RiECTOR JII
1:l!ID;u/ECllJlWS lit ARCH/VEt 91/t
 Thursday. June 8. 1989 RECORD OF THE SENATE On Hacienda Luisita

into newspaper headlines, this other CARP trnnsaction emerged even if voting, is a meaningless exercise because the 66 21
in trickles of published information. percent virtuallyowns thecorporation and the land and the asset
belonging to the corporation.
This is the Hacienda Luisita stock distributionscheme.
Thus, the Cojuangcos, having absolute control of th'
Last May 16, an editorial in the Philippine Daily Inquirer corporation- to which Hacienda Luisita was transferred- wi!
hailed the Hacienda Luisita Stock Distribution as an innovative continueto own that land, to manage it and operate the haciendi
land reform approach and a model worth emulating. for as long as they retain that absolute control of this 66.7 percen
of the voting stock of the corporation.
But on the same paper,Mr. President, tucked in the letters to
the Editor comer, a letter from the Pambansang Pederasyon ng Last June 3, the Philippine Daily Inquirer carried a paid
KababaihangMagbubukiddenouncedthescheme,anddenounced advertisement titled: "What Makes the Difference Between
it quite validly. GarchitorenaandLuisita? And the same advertisement answered
that question by resoundingly saying: "Nothing,"
It assailed theHaciendaLuisita deal on two grounds.namely:
For indeed,Mr. President, there is no difference. The injuries
One, that it violated the "Land to the Tiller" priociple; are inflicted by the very beneficiaries so-called of these two land
schemes.
And second, that under the Stock Distribution Scheme, the
landowners tend to undervalue the land and then overvalue what The Ad, purportedly by the Kilusang Magbubukid Ng
they have invested to develop the land. Pilipinas, claims the Garchitorena land scam involves a case of
overpricing1,889hectaresof cogonal land at P33,I92 per hectare
So, unlike in the case of Garchitorena where the land was whenits actual price is only P5,OOO per hectare, or a loss ofP53.3
overvalued, the case of the land in Hacienda Luisita was to million of taxpayers' money. The advertisement adds that the
undervalue that land in order to precisely control and prejudice HaciendaLuisitastock transferscheme undervalues,this time it is
the farmers-beneficiaries who are sought to be charitablygiven a the reverse, 6,000 hectares of prodnctive and developed sugar
share of their land. landin order to correspondinglyundervaluethe shares of stocks to
be trnnsferred to, and owned by the farmers, the farm workers,
Also last May 16, the Manila Chronicle reported that the TheAd insiststhat theCojuangco Estate is priced at only P33,OOO
familyof PresidentAquinocouldgeneratemore thanP250million per hectare whenit actuallyfetches a price of as much asP60,OOO
in revenues once the Cojuangcos of Tarlac - belonging to the per hectare, with 'Ib,e farm workers losing a grant total of PI62
side of Mrs. Corazon C. Aquino - sell the vast haciendato farm million which otherwise would have been included as a part of
tenants under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. their equity participation in the holding corporation 'to give them
at least a decent and respectable voice in that corporation.
In its May 29 to May 30 edition, the We Forum carried the
headline: "Cojuangcos' Land Refor-m. Masterpiece of LastJune6, The Manila Chronicle reported theassessmentof
Deception." the Congressfor People's Agrarian Reform, an association of 12
nationalpeasantorganizations,thatCARP has failed bothas a law
Inside the paper were three articles titled, respectively: One, and as a program.
"Agrarian Reform, Cojuangco Style;" the second headline was
titled: "Luisita Stock-Transfer Scheme, Insult to Peasants," and The group cited both the Garchitorena land scam and the
the third article was titled: "Cory's Hacienda. Paper, Not Land." HaciendaLuisitastockdistributionscheme as proofs of thefailure
of CARP. '
The We Forum charged that under the Cojuangco Stock
Dislribution, the 7000 farm workers will get a maximumof only The group claimed that in the case of Hacienda Luisita, not
33.2965 percent or to round it up, 33.3 percentof theoutstanding only were thefarm workerscheated of their right to own the land;
capital stock, with the Cojuangcos retaining ownershipof 66.704 theywere also made to think that the gesture of stock-sharingwas
percent, or to round it up, 66.7 percent or roughly two-thirds of an act of charity that they deserve on the part of the Hacienda
the Hacienda Luisita Incorporated outstandingcapital stock. Luisita owners, the Cojuangco family.

!vir. President, you and I, having a little knowledge of The increasing adversepublic reaction to the HaciendaLuisita
Corporation Law and the Dynamics of CorporatePolitics, would stockdislributionschemeis veryserious, Mr. President Since the
tell us that 33 1/3 percent of the capital stock of a corporation, scheme was carried out in accordance with Section 31 of CARP,
1465
col!RTIFIED TRUE COP I
~~
ANTONIA P. BARROS
v,mECTOR .m:
1I.t1li(l.IlECOIlDS &0 ARCHlVS9 8\/,
 On Hacienda Luisita RECORD OF THE SENATE
this development should provoke this Chamber to look into the
matter in order to find out whether there is a need to plug the
loopholes in the law; for otherwise, the effort of this Congress,
specially of this Chamber, to bring about a Comprehensive Land
Reform Program for the needy Filipinos in the rural areas will be
brought to naught.
To get a total picture of the Hacienda Luisita story, Mr.
President, we should recall how Hacienda Luisita wasacquired
from its former Spanish owners, the Compaiiia General de
Tabacos de Filipinos or Tabacalera for short. The litigation
instituted against the Cojuangcos over the Hacienda during the
Marcos administration, the dismissal of the case during the Aquino
administration, and its eventual placement under CARP.
Mr. President, these are the four stages of this entire sordid
transaction that will bring to focus the deception that was foisted
upon the nation in connection with this transaction.
o Court records show that the Cojuangcos acquired Central
Azucarera de Tarlac and Hacienda Luisita, two entities, in 1958
with the help of the government then.
In 1957, the Spanish owners of the majority shares of stocks
in Central Azucarera de Tarlac, a sugar-milling corporation,
offered to sell those shares to the late Jose Cojuangco, Sr., father
ofthe incumbent Presidentof the Philippines, but wanted payment
in dollars, not in pesos. Mr. Jose Cojuangco, Sr, sought out the
help of the Central Bank of the Philippines in connection with his
dollar loan from the Manufacturers Trnst Company of New York.
The Central Bank did help him on condition that "there shall
be a simultaneous purchase of Hacienda Luisita with the purchase
of the shares of Central Azucarera de Tarlac with a view to
distributing this hacienda to small farmers inside the hacienda in
line with the administration's social justice program at that time.
The shares in the Central Azucarera de Tarlac, numbering
106,424 shares, were subsequently acquired at the price of $20
U.S. per share, for a total price of $2,128,480.
To pay for Hacienda Luisita, on the other hand, .the
Cojuangcos obtained a loan ofP5,911,OOO from the GSIS, subject
to several conditions, one of which provided, and I quote:
That the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita shall be
subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof
under reasonable terms and conditions.
This condition was later amended in another GSIS resolution
which provided, and I quote again:
1466
.J L. Ii i
Vol. IV, No. 143
That the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita shall be
subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold at cost to
the tenants, should there be any, and whenever conditions
should exist warranting such action under the provisions of
the Land Tenure Act; Hacienda Luisita was subsequently
purchased by the Tarlac Development Corporation or
TADECO controlled and managed by Mr. Jose Cojuangco,
Sr. and his childrenfor the price of P3,988,tJOO.
On May 8, 1980, the Marcos administration instituted a
complaint before the Manila Court of First Instance for specific
performance to compel the Tarlac Development Corporation and
the heirs of the late Jose Cojuangco, Sr. to comply with the
condition in the Central Bank Monetary Board and the GSIS
Board Resolutions in 1957 and 1958 when Cojuangco obtained
the dollar loan from the Manufacturers Trust Company of New
York and the loan from the GSIS. One of the defendants in that
case was the incumbent President of the Republic.
The case was litigated during the next five years until,
December 2, 1985, a few months before the EDSA Revolution,
when Trial Judge Bernardo Pardo, a former assistant in the office
of Jose W. Diokno, ruled in favor of the government. TADECO
appealed the decision. This was the status ofthe case when EDSA
Revolution took place and the Aquino administration was installed
to power.
Records at the Court of Appeals show the following
subsequent developments in the case:
Appellants filed their appeal brief on October 17, 1986-
these are the Cojuangco families. It took them six months from
the time the Court of Appeals ordered them to me their appellants'
brief. An amended appellants' brief was filed on December 12,
1986.
On the same day, December 12, 1986, the government,
through the Solicitor General, was ordered to me the Appellee's
brief.
From February 17, 1987 to August 31, 1987 - a period
covering six months and ten days - the Solicitor General filed
Appellee's brief. These motions were granted despite warnings
from the Court that each motion granted would be the last.
At this juncture, the Senate President relinquished the Chair
to Senator Gonzales.
The Appellee's brief, eventually, was never filed because on
September 22, 1987, the Solicitor General filed a manifestation
and motion asking for a suspenslon of the proceedings.
c;I!lRTIFIED TRUE cop,
A~OS
DiRECTOR :m:
ma. RECORDS" ARCHIVES $'1
 Thursday, June 8, 1989 RECORD OF THE SENATE
This is something that I could not understand because the
Solicitor General is supposed to be the lawyer for the Republic of
the Philippines, the principal party there that won the case, and yet
it asked for the suspension in the proceedings in the Court of
Appeals.
In his motion, the Solicitor General further moved that it
would be appropriate at that stage to inquire of the Central Bank,
the GSIS, and the Department of Agrarian Reform whether, as the
agencies concerned, in the case, they were still interested in
prosecuting the appeal, or alternatively, whether it would be
preferable to have the case dismissed so that Hacienda Luisita can
be subjected to agrarian reform.
The Solicitor General, Mr. Frank Chavez, claimed he was
making his motion in view of the recent adoption of the
Comprehensive Land Reform Program and President Aquino's
recent public commitment to bring Hacienda Luisita under that
program.
o On February 4, 1988, the Court of Appeals ordered the
suspension of the proceedings and required the three agencies
concerned, meaning, the Central Bank, the GSIS, and the
Department of Agrarian Reform, to submit their comments.
All three agencies expressed lack of interest in prosecuting
the appeal and offered no objection to a dismissal of the case.
In his comment, DAR Secretary Philip Juico, who is no"!
involved in the Garchitorena land scam, said his department
found no legal impediment and was giving due course to the
intention of TADECO to apply for coverage under Section 10 of
Executive Order No. 229. Executive Order No. 229 was issued by
the incumbent President, Mrs. Corazon C. Aquino, a party-litigant
in the case pending in the Court of Appeals which was later
o dismissed by the Solicitor General. And this Executive Order No.
229 was issued by her under the Freedom Constitution of July 22,
1987, five days, Mr. President, five days, before the reopening of
Congress.
Section 10 of Executive Order No. 229 provides:
CORPORATE LANDOWNERS: Corporate landowners
may give their workers and other qualified beneficiaries the right
to purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation
that the land assets bear -in relation to the corporation's total
assets, and grant additional compensation which may be of use
for this purpose. The approval of the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC)...
of which Mrs. Aquino is the Chairwoman,
On HaciendaLuisita
of a plan for such stock distribution, and its initial
implemen tation, shall be deemed compliance with the land
distribution requirements of the CARP.
This section was later substantially incorporated in Section
31 ofRA No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law..
On May 18, 1988, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case,
not the appeal of the appellant Cojuangco Family, but the entire
case was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals dismissed the case on appeal without prejudice to be
revived if any of the conditions embodied in the letter dated April
8, 1988 ofthe Secretary of Agrarian Reform were not met. These
conditions were:
I. Should TADECO fail to obtain approval of the stock
distribution plan for failure to comply with all the requirements
for corporate landowners set forth in the guidelines issued by the
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC); or
2. If such stock distribution plan is approved by PARC, but
TADECO fails to initially implement it.
Based on this chronological narration of the litigation over
Hacienda Luisita and its eventual inclusion under the CARP
Program, I would like to make these observations and pose these
questions, Mr. President:
One, why did Mrs. Aquino, a party in the case on appeal, not
allow the regular judicial process to take care of the Cojuangcos'
appeal? Why did she and other members of her family, through
their lawyers, choose instead the alternative course of action of
Solicitor General Frank Chavez in dismissing not the appeal but
the entire case of the Republic of the Philippines for the benefit of
the beneficiary farmers in Hacienda Luisita?
Mr. Chavez explained in his motion that while he realized
that the complaint against the Cojuangcos was an ill-disguised
effort of political vendetta, he will not move for the outright
dismissal of the case to avoid suspicion. 1 do not know what
suspicion he had in mind if he really believed in what he was
doing. Like Caesar's wife, maybe, he thought that he must be
beyond suspicion - the doctrine of transparency again.
He also made it a point to identify the dramatis personae
involved in the institution of the complaint. His move, in my
humble opinion, only invites greater suspicion, Mr. President.
The dramatis personae involved in stating the position of the
agencies concerned, namely, the Central Bank of the Philippines,
the Department of Agrarian Reform, and the Government Service
Insurance System, are all Aquino-appointed subalterns and
':I!RTIFIEP TRUE COPS
rLr:!J?, Il AJv{2() ) 1467
ANTbNiA'P. BARIl09
DIRECTOR m
il.EG, RECORDS" ARCHIVES no
 On Hacienda Luisita RECORD OF THE SENATE
collaborators of the presidency of Mrs. Aquino. Mr. Jobo
Fernandez of the Central Bank was appointed under the Aquino
government as Central Bank Governor. But, over and beyond
that, Mr. President, Jose B. Fernandez, otherwise known as "Jobo",
used to be an employee of the same family that bought this
property when the division of the Bank of Commerce, owned and
controlled by the Cojuangco family, was managed by the family
of President Aquino. In fact, if my recollection is correct, Mr.
Jobo Fernandez was a Vice-President of the Bank of Commerce
when this transaction took place sometime in 1957 and 1958, and
I was the lawyer of Tabacalera in this transaction at that time.
GSIS President and General Manager Feliciano Belmonte,
Jr. of Stockton fame, was an appointee of Mrs. Aquino, and that
Secretary Philip Juico, presently on leave due to the Garchitorena
land scam, is a favorite Cabinet member in the Aquino
administration and an appointee of the incumbent President.
Number Two. Executive Order No. 229, issued by Mrs.
() Aquino five days before the reopening of Congress, was obviously
designed to insure compliance with the conditions set forth in the
Court of Appeals' dismissal of the case. Under E.O. No. 229,
Mrs. Aquino herself presides over the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council in approving the plan of stock distribution. The
question is: Did she participate in approving such stock distribution
plan of the Cojuangcos? If she did, should she not have inhibited
herselfifonly outof delicadezat If she did not, who presided over
PARC when, in fact, she was, by her own edict and decree, the
Chairwoman of that Body?
In my humble study of this case, Mr. President,' my
impression, to use the words of the Solicitor General, has
increasingly been reinforced, that the whole proceedings
constituted a zarzuela or moro-moro, starring some of the
President's men and, maybe, even the President herself. If,
indeed, Mr. Marcos and his cosubalterns conspired in proceeding
against the Cojuangcos out of political vendetta, as Mr. Chavez
implied in his motion, the suspicion also arises that the Aquino
administration, this administration, did the same in order to have
the case dismissed, as in fact, it was dismissed, not to prejudice
Mr. Marcos, the political enemy of this administration, but to
prejudice the farm workers and the various tillers of Hacienda
Luisita which we sought to benefit under the Land Reform
Program.
These developments, Mr. President, indicate to this humble
Representation that the Cojuangcos, taking undue advantage of
the awesome powers of the presidency, make sure that Hacienda
Luisita was not subdivided among the farm tenants; and through a
midnight decree of the President allowed its placement under a
new land reform scheme which would perpetuate their absolute
control and ownership of Hacienda Luisita to the prejudice of the
1468
--_._-- -_. ._- - - - - - ------
Vol. W, No. 143
farmers. In fact, the draft of the memorandum of agreement
supposedly to be signed between the farmers, Hacienda Luisita,
Incorporated, and Tarlac Development Corporation makes a
provision that this stock scheme will become finally effective
only after the lapse of 30 years. Thirty years, whereas, they made
it appear that they are giving Pl18 million worth of shares to the
farmers. That is not so if they have followed this draft of the
document that I have, because it says here that every year within
a period of30 years only one-thirtieth of the entire amount allotted
to the Hacienda Luisita Land would be allocated to the farmer-
beneficiaries; which is, in effect, Mr. President, an implied
amendment ofthe enactment of this Congress where we limited-to
ten years the right of a corporate landowner to enjoy the land. And
not only that, the 3 percent share of the beneficiaries out of the
gross production of Hacienda Luisita was converted into a cash
dividend, or a bonus for these hapless farmer-beneficiaries.
Mr. President, I was not born yesterday. All my life, I have
been a corporate man; I challenge the lawyers ofPresidentAquino
and President Aquino, herself, to tell the public that these farmers
have any say in Hacienda Luisita, other than this consuelo debobo
of having to elect one-third of the board ofdirectors of that
corporate holder of Hacienda Luisita.
Even way back in 1958, the Cojuangcos already indicated
their tenacity to maintain their dominant hold on the estate known
as Hacienda Luisita. The amendment of the original GSIS
Resolution of the Cojuangco loan supports my contention. GSIS
Resolution No. 3202, dated November 27, 1957 shows that, and I
quote:
That the lots comprising the HaciendaLuisita shall be
subdivided among the tenants who shallpay thecost thereof
under reasonable terms andconditions.
GSIS Resolution No. 356, dated February 5, 1958, amended
the preceding resolution by restating the condition to read, and I
quote again:
Thatthe lots comprising the Hacienda Luisitashall be
subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold to the
tenants, should there be any. and whenever conditions should
exist warranting such actionundertheprovisionsof theLand
Tenure Act.
I can see, Mr. President, that at the time this transaction took
place there were tenants in Hacienda Luisita. I was the lawyer of
Hacienda Luisita, I used to sleep in that hacienda whenever 1 go
there to handle cases for them. In fact, I prosecuted the murder of
Ramon Ortiz, the overseer ofHacienda Luisita who died in Barrio
San Sebastian. Inside that hacienda there were seven barangays
then.
';1!!/fT'FlEl> TRUE COP.!
AN~S
DiRECTOR ]I[
"-EG. RECORDS" ARCHIVES sw.
 Thursday.June 8.1989 RECORD OF THE SENATE Privilege Speech of Sen. Guingona

The Hacienda Luisita case. Mr. President, raises a lot of The coconutlevy was started in 1972. It generated more than
questions that need to be answered. Since the President of the P9 billion. It was suspended in 1980 after havirig undergone
Republic herself is involved, as I am sure she is involvedin this several amendments from the Consumers Stabilization Fund.
case, the credibility of the government in implementing the There was the Coconut Industrial Investment Fund amounting to
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is at stake. Already over P2 billion. Then, there was the CIDF or the Coconut.
the Garchitorena land scandal has dealt a serious blow to CARP. InvestmentDevelopment Fund which was over P1.4 billion, and
If the questions raised in the Hacienda Luisita case are not it branched out into several subsidiaries; but. the sum total of the
sufficientlyand credibly answered, I am afraid that the case may fundsgenerated from 1972to 1982was more thanP9 billion, Mr.
just deliver thefatal blow to the ComprehensiveAgrarianReform President.
Program. To prevent this ominous disaster, I thereforecall on the
Senate President and the distinguishedMembersof this Senate to They suspended in 1980, changed to supposedly export
undertake the necessary inquiry to look into all aspects of the subsidy; but, actually, passed on to the farmers, and under the
Hacienda Luisita transaction in order to arrive at a possible same procedure the exaction continued until a Cabinet decision
remedial legislation that will henceforth correct the deficiencies suspended the imposition of the levies.
that we are now encountering.
Mr. President, these funds are supposed to be trust funds.
Thank you, Mr. President. They are special exactions for special purposes. And, yet, under
the procedure, when a coconut miller or trader purchases copra,
Senator Alvarez. Mr. President.
let us say, for Pl00 per kilogram of copra, he pays to the farmer
( i
<: The Presiding Officer [Senator Gonzales], The Senator only P85 and is supposedto remit the pi 5 representing the levy to
from Isabela is recognized. May the Chair know his pleasure? thePhilippineCoconutAuthority, and through the years, thereby
generating more than P9 billion. But we have on record, Mr.
MOTION OF SENATOR ALVAREZ President, 29 corporations which have not remitted, which have
(Referral of Enrile Question of Privilege had late remittances,and inadequate remittances, totalling more
to the Agrarian Reform Committee) thanPI billion. Many of these corporations, Mr. President, were
funded by the coconut levy themselves; acquiring coconut mills,
Senator Alvarez. Mr. President. with the indulgenceof the acquiring processing plants, establishing their own businesses,
Chair, may I move that the speech of the distinguishedGentleman and, afterwards,not remitting thelevies exacted from the farmers.
from Cagayau Valley be referred to the Committee on Agrarian This is a very serious thing because it comprises, as we said, trust
Reform for thorough inquiry in order to validate his observation funds, and, therefore, there is a criminal aspect involved in this
and to help the Chamber in arriving atthe conclusions which he nonremittance of levy revenues. Because of this, Mr. President,
profers to this Body. the government has been deprived of more than PI billion. If
nothing is done about it, then the government's coconut program
Senator Enrile. Thankyou. will continue to suffer.
The Presiding Officer [Senator Gonzales]. Is there any As a matter of fact. there has been an authority in the Senate
commenton the motion? [Silence] Is thereany objectionthereto? SubsidyBill to utilizepart of thecoconutlevy. But, as I understand
[Silence] The Chair hears none; the motion is approved, and the it, there is only P32 million left, and this is partiy in the Unicorn.
speech of the Minority Floor Leader is referred to the Committee We cannot determine because the coconut levy today is partiy in
on Agrarian Reform for appropriate action. assets, partly sequestered, and partiy in liquid cash; but the fact
Senator Mercado. Mr. President, also on a mailer of remains, Mr. President, that as of December of 1988, there is an
privilege, I ask that we recognize Senator Gningona. outstandingobligation on the part of the 29 corporations to remit
more than PI billion. Because of this, the government is thereby
The Presiding Officer [Senator Gonzales]. The President prejudiced to that extent.
Pro Tempore, Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., is recognized.
MOTION OF SENATOR GUINGONA
PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF SENATOR GUINGONA (Referral of Guingona Privilege Speech to the
(On Coconut Levy) Committee on Public Accountability)

Senator Guingona. Thank you, Mr. President In view of the foregoing, Mr. President, I ask that a more
thoroughinvestigation be conducted into thismailer which is very
Distinguished Colleagues, I would like to concentrateon the vital to thecoconutindustry,very vital to the farmers, very vital to
coconut levy, Mr. President. the nation, and there is need to pinpont the responsibility and
1469
,;SRTfFIEI> TRUE COP}
~l!~
ANJON/A P. BARROS
DiRECTOR :m:
r.EG, RECORDS" ARCIHVES fttl,
 "' BRAG I (.~,,":I.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 19

OPENING OF SESSION

lJt 4:13 p m cs the. Speakefc Pro Tempcir:e s the

i Honorable
Antonio V. Cuenco, ca.lled the House to order.

hereby called to order"

NATIONAL ANTHEM
)

THE SF'Ef~ I<EI:( F'F:Cl TI::1'IF'OI:(1:: ,; ~J,;?";:i. 11 n CM "i "t,,,,", d "\,,

, ")(0

Everybody rosie t'ar: the singing of .the Ne t i onel /~ntl1ern"

PRAYER

. Everybody r emeirred standing for" the F'ra.ver ..

(~)
---......-!------------~--_--'.~-----...,-...,-...,=.,.--...,--...,----------.,.----

.-
. 1'-11:;;.. ZA1"I(':)Bf~) " 1"'1 v" B l:H..:.:o.:;;, k.(~: I'" .. m.;:"l.y I .:':\ ~:~ k. t h.;":\ t t'J(0 d i. s; p-.'n~:;~'0

e.

THE SE'[AKES F'F\O TEMPOSE .. Any o b i ection? (Si.lencel

House of Representatives
LegisLtLivt [nc;hiYeS Service .
,CERTIFIED TRUE COPY,

1 . . I(ifi r .... '

..... -_._-------- . 'f J U '..' 1
 '. BI:MCIA-l . l~eb0uary 5, 1992

APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

th~ Journal o'f ttlS ~)reViOll~ .ses~ic)n~

(811 en c e) There is nonel the JOurnal of the previous

,.

REFERENCE Of BUSINESS
()
( The
Secr,,,tarv read the fo.llcJw.ina Ne"'isaqes 'from tNe
Send t:e:!1' nrid Commi t tee Reportzss; . whi 1 e
Communi Cd ti i on, 'the
Speaker Pro' Tempore mecie the cCJrrE:"sfJondinc: refei'"-enCf2';::;' .. )

-------------~-'-----,-~:;;--~-,--,------------- ---

-~---'-------------------------~-
.. _ _-
--0:'---------n--m:hrtive--ArelriIreHeiMee-~___,_~~-----'--

.
--
.c.
-100 O} 2
--------------------
 ,.
Febv"uary 5, 1992. 4::J.!j p .. fI\ ..

HOuse of Representatives
,;D!)ITHlI-IAL I"I:.:FI":I"I:.:I'ICI::: Cl ,. B(JSII'II:::~:,if1egislative Archives Service

\";k::-~:;"E;-:;\gE:O. da'l:.f.0d F:"E~bl~'U~"l:f'Y 4!1 :1.(Y(i~~~1 :i.Y\'f/(JI'''m:i.ng th(;? 'HC)ll~:;E:< .o'f

li;:~:)pi't~~;e:\nt(:\t:i.v~:~~?.t.h-::~.t th(:~ Bl?:.\n~:;\tl:::: on Ff.0bvu-:ll.l"'"y 4'1' :l(1~?~':~'1
P-:'''$~5r.;d . ~l,.l:ith .::\m(:::ndm(~::n'I:.-::~ 1'IC)u.'::;(:~ E~:i.ll j.. .ID,, ;:~~;}~:::7~"
(.:.) n -{: i. t 1 ~::)tl :1

"(.,1,1 ,,-,CT' GI:''-,I-IT I 1'101 THE: . 1'i,!)l'IUHAY m((i(.~I1)cr.\f:)"r 11'10 . SY''''n::J'1 :.

HIC .... ,"I FI":AI'ICHISE TD COJ;J~HI~UCT" II'i'''TAI...I... .. CW'EI',ATE
/,J~D I'I,-,IHT,YI:H II("DID BF':ClADC(.~STIHG ST(',TIClI'IS I 1'1 THE
ISI...AHD OF I...U:r.Jl!'1 (-,J'1l) FOIl( OTIII:':I', 1::'UF:I':'ClSJ:::S .. u

TCl THE CClI'WIITT,':I:': 01'1 mJI...ES

1:~(,?pOI,t by ti'\(~:: CC)iI\m:l :t. 'h~H-? QI1 1-((0.1.1 'l: h . ~-i\ncl .tl';'I~=- Cc>mm:i-. t '\:.(0(:;:0 . on
(;PPI"()P!':i.~~tt:i.C)nS") (CC)mm:i.ttEH~~ l:~(?pol:t: !"'I~J" :I.8;::~9) " Vi!.~ Ht)u~:~f::'~
Bill NC)1I 24835, entitle~~

l'lUHICIF"ALITIE," IiJITHClUT HEAI...TH AI',I)) I'IEDICAI...

FM:n. rrIF,:f; "HD ,<,!::'I::,!,COI::'I<Vd'I!'IG FUHD*:, THEfCEFDF,"

------------~--::-:-~~:--:------::::---:::-:-------,---_
..
.G(JI~\91..f::~S~;fIH:~n 1'1ol'\'f61,t' l l .And.::\Y~"~1 T)/!I C(Jng\~'es:swom~:\1'l
__._--
,gtlV't;:J..Ttjnjd/",r:l jl r;onql'(p~:~~;;mfF>n F'l.I.Z()Ii" 1=\~mm:i.fii~Z.,
Conq 1"e~5~5{.~C)men I....~\b~'il!; :i. a ~l Alm~3.Y i C}:I t 1'1(0 Iv\(?mb(-:~I'~5 of
'j'hf:'" Cqmm:i ttf'(':'\ on, ih;:~i;\lt.h .:;tn~:1 tl'H:'~ rrh7)mb(:)I.. ~:) of t.h~:!

;<'

o
----...,------:c:-c::--:::;-;:-=-:::c-::----:-:.,...,-:--.,..,------;----,-~--::-_;_-_=_-_,_-------- ---

. 0\1 'tc)pic:-r:; :i.fOpOI'l'..::\nt to 'l:I')(::?f1\" 'l'hE:':sia .r.l,I'e, tl'l('~ G(:!litli:,::mi!.:.\n t=I~C)fn

 mlluna - 1 FebF"l.lar-y 5, 1992 4: 20 p .. mu
House of Representatives
Legislative Archives Service

l'lR. ZAMORA. ,and trie Honorable Gera~do Cabochan.

THE SPEAKER PRO TE~lPOF<E. the Gentleman

from Isabela is now recognized.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF REP. ALBANO

~lR. ALBANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker and my distingui~hed colle~gues in this

'a,ugus't Chamber:

'- The Solicitor General, Francisco I. Chavez, has

finally resigned f~om office. He took his own sweet time

o to' do .. so, hanging into his offi~e until

minutes, to pursue his senatorial ambition which he has

mad'e public a long time ago.

'The F't-esident could hav"e BHercised her- ffiGF"al suasion

to convince Mr. Chavez to resign f~om office the moment h~

'annoUnced his candidacy if on 1 y to prove .cie I i c:adeza is not

dead and buried in this regime .. But" this vain hope'

notWithstanding, I admire President Aquino for accepting

the I'""'esignation of such an abusive add COI"'F"Upt official . '

(',
~'--,------------,----,-------------------------------------

I say "ab~sivel's Mr .. Speaker,. because Mr. Chavez used'

his office to malign o t.her e and promote his political

advancement.

Speaking with inimitable arrogance and gall, he

denigt-ated Mt-s. Imelda Marcos bid fQt- tile ,presidency as an

insult to the Filipino people. In the same breath, he

conde~ned the Mar~6ses for crimes against the nation yet to

b~ submitted to the lawful determination of our judicial

') 0 0 0,1 4
I.) ,,(

mlluna. - 1 Febnlar-y ~" 1992 4:20 p .. m..

House of Representatives
'Legislative Archives Service

processes.

I ,--..ullloL facll Llillii fUr I u:: S

4

I e~pect li~S I igllt cO CJ. ilig Lo l::IIEIiI 'i:dlJ bel icy..... ill Llle

Il.wbi 1 i ly 0 i U II::.' i\ I Lei Iliull~ rrra t err OLlzt::' Li IEIii .. But bile

dal? bPLlild Lo upllold LlIE i.liLeYI il}' of QUI 5 1=>tem oj

dlld jusLi~e is eA~eLLed Lo be ilIUi,E ell CUlil~pecl ..

Had lit:: IluL arrrrorrrrtreti lie "'j8::l- i Lilli/illY lUI L1le Sella Le,

Utefi lJo;le' can dismiss. hi::s ou.i:::Eiul=st D;gainst t1rs. M:;'FCBS .:tAd

basliEr .. BuL liE did dlid Ids orflL.E .wa~ i::'. Cdllv1:lliellL L(::)o 1
() ~lle nat cos bidS ~
CO t
bo 1 selIIS
I' bid
... fUI

Ti IF pi a Li ;:;o,t~ Led sclledo 1 iily 0 f , U Ie filiilg 01

full mEdia

,_0 v EJ age 5uH:.\. ck so 0 f UI lab:~u51leJ 91 mllds tailJ 1119 fo, Llle sake '0 f

. buildilig tJi<::d: IH= ey~FI eliiSiCLISSe!s tlJe! deta i l~ Elf the!3e

~I' I d kas ~r=judEd t~

I" .
-\..../ charge ElM

th~ ledge of EOIILeli'lpi:: fel violaLiilg Ule lole or' :=n..iD judice ..

too iIh:Ed i 9 I I

,;Ulers dlld ad ""ailce. Id~ political dmb.i.Liolis, I leaf Una day

~"'1jlell by a sb oke Qf CI del Fdt.1::" lie; is elected. ~Jould lie lioL

.:U'C: hE], pI 2''';:; to ee'reJ"ls ':hem;:;e h'e;:? t~hs Iisul eJ <ila'i1b 1- hi~
['(Inn,,<=:
A) -r.

mlluna - 1 February 5, 1992

,
trust on an official this abusive? And what political group

would there embr'ace such a man in its ranks.

But let us ascribe this Marcos-bashing binge to

excessive zeal ~nd his need to convince voters that he is

doing his job so courageously and so well.

It is confounding, howeve~, why the same zeal has not

been seen in cases .... /mll

I
.Hause of ReptcSenlailves

o
 '.~:
DOMINGO FEBRUARY 5, -1992 4:25P.I~. '

House 'of Representatives

Legislative Archives Service '
(F',O. ,- 'THE SPEAKER PRO TEt-lPORE) 'Jr.RTIFIE~E COpy
" " '/ DilestorEdthdo H, PangiHn,.n
, r1F( ,ALBANO.', ,. \>,hy ;the same ,zeal has n.ot"b, ' ',:lIlliE-EllUl' OTLme:_~, ~_ _
'cases not Lrivo I ving the r'larcnses. The COr1ELEC debacle

whet-e one COMELEC;'Com';'issioner threa,tened to charge' , ~1r'.

Chavez "l,dministt-atively, , is just the latest instance,

e,videnc+,'ng his, penchance tn abandnn c a s e s ;+ s 01+'d S t ,ream,

'like a "dbctnr \>,hq leaves a:patient 6n the operating , table

uncarirlg ,~hether nr not that patient will die, '

An ar-ti cl e on February 4 issue of tile Phi 1 ippine Times

Journal say~ it all and I quote~ uSnlici~or~Generai Frank

IiTirante Kid ll
ChaVez is d,ea,d serious -- he is sel.. . ious in

0 join~ng the Senatorial f r.qty~ but' his attempt, because of

hs' almost untarnished t-ecO.t,,:d,' halos, laha't ng kaso talo

willend,updead or a'poiitical cadaver. He has time and

. again, been r:ebLiffeq by his ,own client",;, -- Maiacanang and,

'the PCGG, and' other government. eni:;:ities. Quezon City

Regional Trial Court Presiding Judge Benigno, T, Da'ya,~ late

l?st year.cited .Chavez along with hist~o as~ist~~ts, Ramon

del Roi~rioandPio Guerrero; with contempt. of court for

'0 fi.ling malicious, slanderoLls and lib,elous pleadings without

Each ,,'as

fired a nominal amount of ~l~,OO, The,case,was all about a

'ITirante Kid ll
doan ka na lang sa 'rac~~ra~k~'

hU~~Jag na sa. Se~:ado;E .kasi doon sa una, baka may panalo ka . u .

But' the .n a L 1 of tfle' coff in of Mr- ~ Chavez', record as a

self~serving Solicitor-General was hammered, only yesterday,

by the, Supreme Court, itsel.f.' In a unan Lmcue decision, 'the'

Supre~eCourt 5tron~ly ~ensured' Mr. Chav~z forder~liction

If) . .
" DQI"IINGO - 1 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 , 4' -':'iE' '1'1
, H9use '~)f' Representatives
. Legislative 'Archives. Service'

~
RTIFIED TRUE COpy
" ~" irm~,H.'pangilinan'
at : . fJlme:--.,.. _
of dwty for ~ithdrawing as counsel 01 th~ , PC G. ' , -

Ch:i,ding ,Chavez for ",untimel y j udieial timorousness" ,

and. for: Ilmis.pl~ced enthusiasm ll "in giv.. ing. mot-e impo,'""tance to

a ~ivil suit for damages against him before a Trial Court

than the PCGG cases, the S,_\pr~me COUt-t also said:

,"It i,s evideritthat the, withdrawoil of the Solicitor

'General'OJas precipitated 'by ,institL;tional 'pique,'.the

la"Jyet-s ,concerned having' a Ll owecl thEj'ir colle\=tive" pride to

pfevai 1. over- "their sense' of du"ty .Ln pY-~.tecting and

upholding the public interest."

o to
While ackno"Jledging tile right of, tile

{..,ji thdY-av-.{ i ts repY-ese~tatidn for a pub 1 i

Solicito,~

C o ff i c i a.I
Gene'"al

in' a

criminal 'case pr a civil suit for damages, the Supreme.

Court ,also said' "The Solicitor-General, is not empower-ed

to make 'a similar step on the basis of a petty rea,son lik.e'

, ' ,

embarrassment~ had they not been p,~eoccupi'ed '~i th thei r-

personal feelings, they cou l d have checked' themselves' 'in

time .. For a. sense of pro,fessional r-espons'ibi 1 i ty ,and

.-, p'roper decorUm woUld dictate tha't they, Chavez and the oss
U distinguish between the institution wHich, from the vefj

beg,.inning, .he.d been consti t'_\ted as th'e law office of the

gove,rnment,' and the individual's thr-ough whom its pm'Jer-S and

duties are exerciied. No e~otions of ~hatever kind and

degree 'should', be aUmjed to becloud '(:heir high sense of

duty and commitment to COU!1ti"-y and p.eople~1l

1"1r~ Chavez also presu'mes he has the moral t-ight tci

judge the fitness of others for public office. I t is

() {i nn i Q
,,
." Dot'll1II60 - 1 FEBRUARY 5, 1992
.. 4 :25P .11

fitting, therefore, that he measures LiP to the same

'?tandards of. ethi.cal. uprightnes'j5. he ~'aves Ln jUdgment of

While ho lawinhib~tshim, was it .thic.! that .he

remained" ....

House of Representatives
Legislative' Archives Service
. i~~RTIFIED TRUE COpy
?If'l'l r da 0 H. Pangilinan

o . e: . .me: -,.._-,-__

o
...

..

() 0.0 O',i 9.
 ,~
If' _"
SANTOS 1
2 05-:92 .4'30 p.m.
House of Representatlve,
loSis!.!,,,. Ar.hi-'e, Ser.;ee
The .Speaker. Pro Tempore

,- . t1R.. ALBANO
was i t ethical that he remained
in

He was also charged ~Jith acts of graft and cOrrllption 8Y

his own subot-dinates in the Solicitor General's Office in

1987. 'Can he, then, dare claim the-.t like Caesar'. wi fs hC? _ _~__

possesses ti,e requi'si te integri ty beyond susn; cion fgr

pub I ic office?

-. In 1987,
taking advantage of his pOSition,
delivery, M

by memorandum I' Ec e i p t , of a 1982 1'1erc:eder;; Rep"",

from the Bureau of Customs,
under L1SLI2i 1 proc:edurPll" the
governmen-t off ice VJi 11 pay -the Customs tc.U~es and dl 1"1- i p-=

without paying for the cost 'of the car since owner~hip
remains in the name of the government.

But in this C~se, I'-1r. Chavez, maneuvering to acc!,lirp

ownership of the car himself, p~id in his Own na

mQ,

"'178,141.00, for the Cutoms duties and ta}:es only,- wjthn"t

paying for the cost of the Mercede~ Benz.

At tl1at 'I-jm,,;
the Mercedes Benz in question had a market value of a /
ho lt
1"'800,000.00.
In other. words, in about si~ montbc
in
.office,
he profited "'600,000.00, 01- an ave.rage of 100, ooo
monthly.

What takes the cake is thf~ purchase .' of 'I'lercede", Ben.,

. spare parts ~!Orth $118.41
or a me"l'?ly sum of 1"2,,447 5'

~harged to the Solicitor Gener~l'. Office despite th~ fact

that said office had no 11ercedes Benz service vehicle.

1 nOOGia
,/. .,
SANTOS 1 2-05-9:;2 4: :~O p , rn,

,On Octobi=r 1987, thi= Office of the 80] ; c oj j~or

'Gi=ni=ral pLlrchased from thi= i"lasti=r CompLlti=r C~nti=r: 22 un a ts

of PC/XT compLlter; 22 Ltnits Citizen 120D, printi=rs~ 22

uni ts mL~l ti.mate 2('dvantage manual; and 22 units offill'] t -i mate'

advantagi= softwari= for a total

prici= of ~759.000.bo.

According to reliabli= SUpplii=r sOLlrces, the ~ompLlti=r cost

only ~18,OOO.00, each, for a total of '~413,,600.00.

wh.re did thi= differi=nCi=Of~347,400.00go?

A total of 82 pii=ci=s of visitors chairswi=re also

pLlrchased by thi= Solicitor Gi=ni=lcal'sOffici= .i,t 1"1.750.00

each,,' for a total prici= of "'143,500.00. Thi= prici= of i=ach

chair is only ~550.00. fora total
cost' of "'45,100.00.
Again, ~~i= ask, whi=ri= did thi= di ffi=ri=nce of, ..98,400.00 ao?

As Solicitor General, hI" fili=d,anti-graft chargi=s

li='ft 'and right against thi= 'Marcoses.
Had h~ any Si=nse of
moral ,consistency, he would have filed anti-gl"aft, c,hargi=s
against himsi=lf.

eJe 'tl;leri=fori=;, appi=al to tile Ombud arnan to 'look again

int6. this anomalous transactions involving Mr. Chavez~ -more

parti~Lllarly involVing that ILldicroLlslycheap Merci=des Beriz
bi=CaLlSe of , a glaring misrepresentation of facts that has

caLlsed gross disadvantage to the interest of government.

We must al~o ask, Mr~ Cha~ez, who ,has been most vocal
in condemning the alleged. ostentatioLls lifestyle and
riches bfthe Marcoses ehs

House of Representatives
Legislative Arcbives, Q@i'l'ie.e
_~PERTIFIEQ2'RUE COpy
----------..,-----..,-----:If,WtY %,ttj~': Pangilinan
2 ') () 0 [) ~ 1
ip Ledesma 1 2-05-92 4:.35 p vm ,
House of Repl'e;sentatives
.Legislative Archives Service
(PO Th. S~eaker Pro Tempore) .'l?RTIFIED TRUE COpy
. ri: ~Director Edr ? H, Pangilinan
art:~
MR. ALRANO. ~ and ri~hes of the Marcoses,
o .'
.Time: .

how
. ,.

dt-ast~cally his lifestyle. changed 'since he'became SolicitOI-

'. Genel'":.al ,

Ft-'om his abode in the BF Home~ ."1;; a practi,sing la:wye'r,

did he move to an infinitely more co~fortable imposing and

magnificent mansion at Ayala, Alabang when he became

Solic1'tor General?' "~~hire more and more peop(e al"e living

misel-ably insqLlatte.r colonies, has he turned away frol)1 a

'lavish' lifestyle? Has he been an. e-";$mpla.r of simple arid.

frugal" living" expected of ~fficials in the moral:governm~nt

o that is the Aqu'ind .regime? How many bodyguards a c compert Lad

fi i m . in . his sort1'es? Did' they ride bL'llet"':proo.fed late

'model vehicles?"

Indeed, there is the rub. Fo~ those obsessed bv,

po 1 i ti ca'l a.mbi tion ,especiall y those I.ho j upge others

astt-ide ,the high horse of ethical integrity

jUdged by 'i:heir own deeds an d bythe Same stand.a.rds they

flaunt in judging others.

In this spirit, I call on myColleague~ in ~his

Chamber toded1'cat~ their' best 1nte':'tions and labors, 'in

the.se til1\es of pitched. pol i tical tens1'ons in co~[ntry, to .

create the environmeht where our people can make

intelligent and sober cho1'~es in the forthcoming elections.

Instead .of w1'eldin9 politica.l 5'-JOrds .a.ga1'nst our foes in'

the' 'political al'"'ena let-us be 'more zealous' in b~~nging

1
') 00 0 12 .
'. ,
L,edesm,'" 1

to our- people the r-eal issues and the raw I~ealit,ies that

threaten , '
the' very sLlr-viv2:\l of our-.nation, so that they ma.
inter iigently, ,and feal~lessly scrutinize the' fitness of

thbse'w~o pr-e~ent ~hemsel~es~s deser-ving o~ their- mandate

in gover-nmen t" .

Let: us gi've dLII- people an e:<ample ,9f hO~I' politics can

be \')aged on qrounds of pr-inciple and genuine comm itmen t; to

'the well-being of our-' people -- with competence, integr-ity",

p'o 1 i tica 1 wi 11 and a viFbl e agenda 'for- the future as

seek.

It ,is th~ .best assuran~ewe can ~ive owr people that

\'Ie, in'tend to give, them a gover-nment, arid an officialdom they

can tr-8st,wher-~ abuse of bffice and cor-r-uption ar-e ~ealt

t".litl,as swiftlY'2nd as m~rcilesslY d.S the 'l~w cornmarid a ,

.And in the pur-suit of political ambitions, let us have

. d e cssncy 91ld courage to st~nd on' our- own. records' of. service

2.nd not to' seek re~uge. in sanctimonious and hyppcr-i tical'

conde~nations,of other-s who' Have as much r-ight as we do, in

ademoc~~tic or-de~.to seek ~he mandat~ of the Filipino

'0 people.

Thank you, Mr-.' Speaker-.

MR. ABAYA. Mr-. Speaker-,

'THE SF'EAKER PFW TEMPORE. What is the pleasur-e of th,e

distinguished Gentleman fr-om Is~bela?

MR. ABAYA.Willmy Colleague fr-om Isabela yield to a

few ques,tions? , House of Representatives ,

, Legislative Archives Service
t J CERT!F1ED TRUE COpy
7DH.~t:rJr l'~~Pangi,]jnan
2/2j),te:_"'I.2l!M.i;':, ' 'HI 0 I) 1 3
' .. , I
Ledesma :- 1 2-0~.-92 4,35 p s m .

~ THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. He may if he so desires;

MR. ALBANO. Gladly, but I ho'pe ...

'rHE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. Please proceed .

1"11" . ALBANO. ... that they will not believe that thii

is a .mC?ro-moro ..

MR. ABAYA. 11r. Speaker,. the Frane: Chavez referred to

in the spee~h of the 'Gentleman from the First District of

,Isabela is the same Frank Chavez who is running for Senator

this caming electio~s?

MR. ALBANO. 'That is' what he has stated and the reason

for his resignation which he submitted to the President

yesterday and l,ja,s alrea,dy accepted. B,jt such resignation

0
MI":. ABA VA. And he is the s"'me Frank Chave;;:" I'll".

Speaker., ~Jho appea....ed in'sitcom television show together

with- anothet- llsenator:ii::\blell, the 'handsome Gentleman 'from

I'1R. ALBANO. I d i.d not see: that sitcom .progJ:'''\"1 but I

believe he is thesame Frank Chavez.'

f(R. ABAYA. Yes. ,One time, Mr. Speae:el~, .I had the

o time .... ',. te 1/

House 0.1 Represetltatives

. Legislative Archives Sel'vke .
CERTIFIED TRUE COpy
!
Ji.
.
'7 D' ector;li
ite:
rdo,' Pangilinan
'tIme:'

3
100014
 " ..... ~. ~. ... .~

." tl I C.

'Th:i,~~ guy

.-

o "IF, " ABA Y,; "

....
. ~:;UbDI~'d:i.n~;r:t(:~-::;.. So i:.. h(:~I'E~ ml,t~:j.{ be tr'i.l.th' :i.n it ..

o
I 'I ,~ " r- I) " I .e ,., ~I
-.~ i:~ ". -
,:;. . t:, what could haJe' beer)'" the source or the

:r. 'f;:..cl. b~::::I. i.:\?

I:II:;~" ALBf~HD"

lCH1Jl;:-Mpa:i.cI E'Hj).pl(JYf.';E~~:;. b~~c.::~US(-:;' {~l/~;:i.lE' tll(:-"y 'W(~'~r~(0' . ('i\~:;.r<:i.n~1

House of Representatives
Legislative Archives Service
:I 1-.{CERTIFIED TRT.].E corv
j~ati"~y i~: Pangilinan
r)(l0015
 ... ,~~ ...... "I.,

'for' 1'-<:\:i.~:;Et in th(~.;.:i. i~' .~:;.(;1.1~:\l~:i.({';'i:;:; .. '''-11'0... Ch,,':\v(:<oz kept on . $,,':\y:i~r\(~1

th(~~I"H~ i.~::. .rro iI1()n,~y~, but J.tJhf:~n .tl)(~~I--(-:~ :i.~::. C)V({':'f~~I:)i~:i.r.::Ln(.:J!, .thf2.I'-E'~ j.~;

...
can t h<::.;> (;)~n t.l f.o~m~:\I'111
. .
Oi
r
less t~].]., us :i.f tli~ irlformat{on ,is aCCuF~te Q0. rel'fable

ALBNICJ ..
,
Ombucl'?~mG\n

to.see it and compare 'j'[

. ..',~"I t h t I"'j ". Inc k'"to,IH. .("I,':
. . . . . 1...::-.". . . . . . ,. _.~ r

d:i.'?;tingu:io~:;I1(:1d 'ccllumn:i.~:}t~~ vJ,h~'r'(~ .h~'2

. House of Representalives
, '. Legislative Archives Service
. fiERTIFIED TRUE CQPY
2
I~(i~iffl Ed d~i~: Pangilinan .
fJOO 0 16
 h I .

,~;;tC)PP(':'H:J hj,~~' Ci:~t":1 h:i.'f.:' .b~:\r.:r/,:"ttP C:..~\1"'~:: 1"':i,dirh7J' in 1:';!c'd~~I"'o tC)(,:J.E~l'.h(';'H~'

{J,,1:i.'th. If'H;d,I'' ~r\~"fIia:~,:i,tf.~~:; {~uid' u zas, v.JE-~n'l: down, arid 1'){:H':'~':ni~~:H~)(j t:lj(,~

.ecurity g~ard'at' Alabang. hel"f:~ in

I1t 'this .iuric t ure , the Speaker Pro Tempore "reI inq~tished
the Chair to the H6noraL.,le Orlando B. Fua ;
---
y(o:,!!:~ ..

. . j; ,

I'IF, " ,';J v' ,. .S (.H:H:\ I':.E~ Y':I . J: -t;'\(I~'.J~ 0 t ~:t.cJ (,~ P 't :i. n

I~:~{:d;H:;<L:i. :1 b'u:t':J: kncH.tJ thj,-::~ ;1.1::' h:l.s:. ~:i,;j.ck~)l:i.n{7.~~1

:[. lIJi3.1 ~il,l~;:.t p~~:;.-::;.' :i."l'. to :ll:i.m"

o I'IF,

:Ln the, ~re'S~nt res{d~ntia]. hb\ASe of Mr .. Frank.

. ..

I..I),~,,'-::~U I',?b..!.. ""'1"'(

.<:\11 ".{:\. ')I-)al~II!r
:t1l.)1 t. y\-:.I H-:~,.. ~ .)'\y'
IIe ""\V
i$: a\'. . . .C(')IT~frwb
. , .H~~ h',l.

House of Representatives

o Legislative Archives Service

~.tl:...J:iA.Y--:t
' , CERTIFIED TRUE COpy
,r
r. ...J)irf,ctor .Edg
~.,
do H. angilinan
,'1me: -'0'.~---,.

noaOl?
 OUISMUNDO - 1

(P.O. MR. FUA)

MR .. ABAYA. not only as Solicitor General but as a

bit player in that sitcom, Mr. Speaker.

l'lR. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if Senator

Webb has' paid Chavez fot- his talents in trlat sho",. But

even if as Solicitor General for the next fifty years,he

will not be able to put up a house as.pa1atial, ".ts

stately as this house I am showing you.

MR. ABAYA. Well I always give anybody the benefit of

a doubt, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Frank Chavez to me is no

exception. Mean1ngto say, I always ~ive.him the benef1t

o of

are
the ciou b t; , especially as regards the

quite serious being hurled by the able.Gentleman

accusations that

from.

the' First District of 'I~abela, who is or who will .be one of

Ol\t- Senatorial candidates in the Nacionalista Par-ty ,,' ~11~.

Speaker.

are afraid, I will be the next Speaker of this House.

MR. ABAYA. Nbnetheless, Mr. Speaker, if there are no

more 'interpellators, I move that the speech of the

Gentleman from the First District of Isabela be referred to

the Committee on Public Accountability, so as to tindout

if indeed the charges could be substantiated.

Thank you very much,' Mr. Speaker.

l~HE PRESIDING OFFICER '(1'1,-. Fu s ) ; The'"e is a motion to

,-efer the speech of the Gentleman from IsabeL~. to the

Committee em Public Accmm tani.l i tv . 1 s there any

~~u.se. oJ k~epr~sen1at1ve.s
I&g'S\'i\twe Arebwes Sei'vice
.6fERTIFIED 1RVE COPY
2 ]Dhlt'f)f
Dates
'f1l.. H. Pangilinaa - - - - - , - - - - - - - -
-1"',,,,,,,,. '\ {~ [\ 11.'1. 0
 QUlSMUNDO 1 2-04-92 4:45P.J1.

o5)ection?

MR. tORJAL. Mr. Speaker.

rAE FI'\ESlDING 'OFFICER (Mr. Fua). rhe Gentleman ,rom

the D1sa6led Sectqr 1S recogn~~ed.

MI-.:. 'BORJAL. Mr~ Speaker~ will the dlstlngulshed

Gentleman Yleld to. a feN quest1.Qns bS-iare we refer the.

speech to the appropriate comm1ttee.

THE ..pRES]DING OFFICER' (Mt-. Fua ) , The Gentleman fl'-om

Isabela may yield, if he so desires.

MR. ALBANO. Gladly to my handsome ColleagUe in this

HOLlse and ,~'ho I suspect ,will rUn for the ,Senate.

o rHE PRESIDING UFFICER (Mr. Fua).

the U1sabIed Sector'1s hereby recogn1zed.

Ihe,Gentleman ,rom

MR~ BdRJAL. Mr. Speaker, the d1~tlngulshed Gentleman

used the" word "others" q~(1te otten dLlr1ng h1S pr1v1lege

speech and he was re,err1ng to people whom Mr. Chavez

all ",gedl y abused. And yet, when we listen to the

distinguished Gentleman, he was just referring to an abuse

,on Imelda Marcos.

May I find out, Mr. Speake~, if this Imelda Marcos'

"-".,
~,,-'----;==::;::;_'=--;::;-;-:;:~_':;_,_;=<;=:-;-r::-;::::-::;::;_=~=____,_:::___:c=::__:=:::__c_--

person who claimed that her husband was able to discover

the Yamashita treasure, Mr. Speaker?

MR. ALBANO. About the Yamashita; I do not knpw. But

the Gentleman is correct that it is the former First Lady

of our country who was generous iM givi~g houseS to the

poor, in relocating squatters, made Metro Manila beautiful

Honse of Represen.:tatives
Legislative Archives Service
2JfFRTIFIED TRUE coPy
" 4(JJCJQT I\.dgad91r.Pangiliuan \00019
 G1U 1SI"IUNDO - 1 -2-04-92 4:45 F'.lvl
.''' ,.

that now ; f .. r"le go around', r~e are ""0 ashamed tho.t this J.S no

lOnger- th~ Melro' Manila the City of Men that Mrs.

built, I"IR. BORJAL. Mr. Speaker, the distinguJ.shed

Spea~;er is a well known la~"1yer !I who J.S really stJ.ff :in 1ar"'.
And" may I ~.now what he Hould say on the claim that 1.f you
,
at-e a finder of hidden treasure !I" ~/OU are supposed to
surrender part of that. hidden treasure to the government,

is that not a factj Mr. Speaker?

MR. ALBANO. That is true, Mr. Speaker.

I"ead r.n the papers J.S that he sa~1 alleged staShed hJ.dden

So whether tnat stash. of gold was 'nnal1y

I

surrendered to our ~oS~rnmen.t or not, 1S now.beyond.us.

Gentlemo.n not agree that at least steps should now be

taken, 'espec2ally at the lnstance of the SOllcitor G~neral

to really look lnto thlS Yamashita Treasure Case and for

the F1.IJ.pJ.no people to retrieve what they deserve out bf

MR. ALBANO. He Should do that, Mr. Speaker, instead

1 wquld wish him to do it and' I

would Llt-ge hJ.m ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - ' - - - - '. .-

.,.'-'
'\[10020
~_.-'-.-<-:--------:--~-------,----------:---~--,---------

CJAguilar - 1 2-05--92 4 = 50 p .. rn ..

and I would urge him. But the fact

is that he is just using" this as an e~cuse in o~der that he

may have a chaMce'to make himself appear as if he ic a

knight in shining armor, when in truth ~nd in fact~ ~e is

not.

i"IR .. BOF(JAL. Now, Mr .. Speaker~ ma~ I know. who were the

other people abused by Mr. Chavez other than Mrs. Marcos?

MF( . ALBAI\iO. Oh, Benedicto, for instance; those tA.lho

did not compromise wi~h this government.

u of them, Mr. Speaker .. I think I just mentionsd the name

Marco~es because of his penchant on the Marcos family, his

biases against the Marcos f~mily. If the" Gentleman is

I will ~FLtrn..ish him na-tOle'S and list of thDse vJho

were abused by ~r. Chavez"-- for inst~nce, Ambassador Diaz~

he was also maligned by Chavez, not only the Marcoses.

I"IR. BORJ P,L " Mr .. Speak~r, the other day, when the

distinguished Gentleman ~rom Sorsogon delivered a privilege

C) ::J.peech on the alleged corrupt >:":{c"l:.ivities of

BIF,

Commissioner Ong, ther-e W.r.:'t5 ~ reaction ~from President

Aquino. .. And P~esident Aquino said that CongressmanGillego

should not resort to.his parliamentary.immunity in order to

whale away at Mr. [Gillegel Ong and instead file the needed

casas in court~ Would not the Gentleman from Isabela,

should he not follow this advice of President Aquino in the

F1Q1:!!t'" (if R::ilr~s:f1:tati':es
Legislative Archives Service
(CEl~~ ' . T COpy

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-,---- --j;~ ljIire lUaeen"'g"'lH"'in"'a-"-n _

,e:~_ e: ~_
)(j0021
 CJAguilar .,. 1

case of Mr~ Chavez and for the distinguished speaker to

himself initiate the legal acti6n against Mr. Chavez?

MR. ALBANO. The fact of the matter, MrB Speaker, is.

~.

that these cases iiire already ",ith the. Ombudsman. And I

really comm~serate with Mrs. Aquino because if Mrs. Aquino

is given the" true facts, she woWld not commit the error of

giving a clean bill of health to corrupt officials like Mr.

Ong, Mr. Chavez" I t seems to h6ive been tile pl'""actic'e

already in Malaca~ang, when you charge an official, they

.~i 11 imm~diately, as if it is a 'stereotyped reaction, na

may whitewash kaagad. Ganyan po ang administrasyon nga..yon,

o wina-whitewash laMat ang mga anomalya sa gobyerno.

I"IR. BORJ AL .

M.R., to a Mercedes Benz issued to Mr. Chavez allegedly on

memorandum rSLeipt. May I know if this is not a Lommon

l'lR. ALBANO. Yes, ~rn Spe~ker, it is an old practice,

but none of the offici~ls in the past claimed that he owned

that 1"1ercedes Berrz , In this particular caSE, I'lr. Chavez

got it in hi s n arne , cqnven ien t 1 y using the Of~F ice of the

Sol ic.i tor G.eller-al fOf~ a memorandum receip.f and claimed that

he paid alt-eady for the cost of the 1lercedes Benz,

what he actually paid was only ..the taxes and duties~

. 1.s V21"'y E.?viden,t ~ Speakel'~ , that

misrepresentation~ There was already ~ gross disadvantage

to the government when you do not ~ay 'the actual cost ,of

the property you get from Cu5iHIffitlt'-'Of Representatives

Legislative Archives Service
CERTiFIED TRUE COPY
------------.,.------..r2 f ;?f
: 'fll
.fuo <;tenr
.' i1Pm
lZ"J7AT ?n~,mp,
E-d. 4; l .t1rnrl1~c-i'.,""'ang,w"tlin.."."..n------.,.....,.,....,,-TI"Tr',.....,----
'\ i.l 0 Ii .)
,, \ .J ." _~)
 CJ Agtli 1 ar -- 1 2-05--92

J'IR. BORJAL.. Speaker- e if there was anything

irregular about the purchase of M~. Chavez of that Mercedes

Benz, is it not a fact .that other government officials were

involved in this irregularity and should therefore also be

proceeded.against?

'-lR. AL.J:lANO. Precisely, I think after this ,peech will

be referred to the Ombudsman, the other parties, like the

SIR Commissioner and examiner, may" be i~pleaded in this

1.Ilves 1:1.gation"

1~IR" BUHJ HL " Well, Mr . Speaker, 1 would l1.ke to thank

the distinguished Gentleman from Isabela for giving me this

opportunl.ty, alfhough, I stl.ll fh 1nk fhaf hOe toClk the -flOOf-

thlS Bfternoon beca~se Mr" Chavez 15 more popular than -I,e

1~ 1.n ~he area of 51ng1ng. fCJa

House of Representatives
Leaislative Archives Service
IACERTIFIED
fV* ;;-
TRUE COpy
p .... ,

(~-',
~,L-----------------'-----------------

"-'
 , .
2/05/92 Hrouse of Represenl1rrtvdC,
L1. c::.!;
~ rn,
Legislative Archives Service
ERTIFIED TRUE COpy
(PO -. 1'1F~. FUA)

MR. BOF,JAL. .
b
7 ~r 'or Ed ? H. Pangilinan
2 ~\rd'i
in the area of singing and I think the
' Iirne: _

Gentleman from Isabela might just .be envious of Mr. Chavez.

MR. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker~ while I should take offense

on the statement of the" Gentleman ascribing personal

intentions~ I will forgive him anyway, Mr. Sp~aker,

he is a good friend and I ~ay not.appear anymore in the

. .7 ayNal key.

MR. WEBB. Mr. Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua). What is the pleasure

of the Gentl~man from ParaRaque?

o t'1R .l"EBB. I will just ask the Gentleman from

two or three questions if I would'be allowed to ask them.

I~abe].a

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua). The Gentleman from

Isabela may yield if he so desires.

!"1R. (':)LBANO. vJillingiy to my handsome friend t-\lho I ss

aspirin~ to be a Senator. I hope his questions will not

prejudice the votes I will deliver to him in Isabela.

-'-'

THE pr~ESIDII\IG OFFICER it1r. Fu s ) , Thee Gentleman from

Para~aque is recOgnized.

MR. WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just .going to ask the G~ntleman

first case against the Marcoses -- when was' it filed the

first c~se if the Gentleman might remember?

t1R . ~'LBAI\IO. Just after Mr. Chavez announced his

desire to run fo~ the Senate because I remember I sat with

him in many occasions iA'TV talk shows and I have alw~ys'

1. '1 () 0 0 :; 4
 , .
ansula--l :':~/05/92 4::55 p"m"

challenged him that for the last five years he has not

yet filed a single case against the Marcosesu Ell t; IlJ hen he

announced .that he was running" for the Senate,

filing cases"

MF:" "JEBB" When was this exactly? Would you say about

a year ago, six months ago -- the first case that he filed

'against the Marcoses?

i'lLBANO" I think, if I am not mistak~n,

was announced that Mrs" Marcos was about to' come" This

must be September of last year"

So approximately"""

o MF<. AL.BANO. After five years of sitting as So"licitor-

So it must have been about four months ago,

three to four'months ago.

~lF: , ALBAI\IO Possibl~J Mr" ~peak~l~"

WEBB" . Yes" The reason, Mr" Speakeri why I am

a~king this is beca~se my reading on the speech of" the

Gentleman from Isabela is that Mr= Chavez was trying to

gain media exposure=

MF:. "',LBANO.

l;JEBB. And there is no truth to the filing of

cases because they are with no contents whatsoEver to be

-Ii J. ed

t1F:. ALBANO. No, M~= Speaker. What I said is that he

should not have talked about the

. merit~ and demerits of the

caE2 becauE8 it is still sub iudice and let

House of Representatives
Legislative Archives Service
lFERTIFIED TRUE COPY
') 17 Dirftfr I-~ Pangiliaaa ') Ii 0 U' ' . l7:
'''' lJ
-,
ansula'-1. 2/05/92 ij.',':i5,p.m,,'

de~ide later on' and he should stop making some antics.

MR. WEBB. ,Mr. Speaker, just help me clarify things

here the moment now that M~u Chavez has resigned as

Solicitor~General, what happens now to these C2$es?

Well, the successor I assume will

continue to prosecute the casesu

!'JEBB. Would the ,Gentleman not be happy enougG

that a successor will be coming in who Would need to'

somehow",get h~mself acquainted with the cases and he ~ight

end up to be a lightweight instead, of a heavyweight?

111'\ ALBAI'JO 'That is the judgment of the Gentleman

o f r-om Par-anaque =

t'IF'. vJEBB. No, it is not mineu I ~m si~ply asking you

if that is the. case

MR. AL.BANO. Mru Speaker, I have ,my own judgment on

the capability of Mru Chav~zu If .1 were to quote on~e more

the Philippine Times Journal, ang sabi rita po ay l'halos

lahat n"g kaso talo lJ .. .!<a.ya papaano koriq sasabihing siva ay

'heavyweight ay wala palang pinanalo iton Ang sabi pa dito

Senado kasi doan sa racetrack b~ka may panalo ~

11
kan

papaano mananalo ay si Fre~die Webb ang kalaban~ 1\laku,

kawawa si Chavezn

"JEBB. Hindi ko po in~asahang sabihin ninyo iyon

,pera salamat po. But anyway~ .Mrn Speaker, thank you very

much for the oppo~tunity.

House of n.presentatives
Than k )/ClIJ.
Legislative Archives Service
,{:9ERTIFIED TRUE COpy'
ie:~t~mft~angiJjnan
 I I,'

ansL\1~'1-1 2/05/92

MR. ALBANO, Salamat po;

MR. CABOCHAN (G.). M~" Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua). The Gentleman from

IsalJe1a I th,ink h'=;;1.s taken hi.s Sf.';:'E\t= But anyt'\IElY, I,"" hat is

the pleasurE of the Gentleman from Caloocan Cit~?

MR. CABOCHAN (G.). May I speak on a questio~ of

in~iyidual and collective privilege?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua). The ...

1'11". Speake;'-' j'llay I mO\/e to t11"

Speaker" .

THE PRESIDINB OFFICER (~"Ir" Eu a ) ; The Gentleman 'from

Isabela.

MRu ABAYAu May I. move to the previous question? I

had a pending motion, .Mr~ Speaker"~.(ala

House of Representatives
Legislative Archives Service

i
CERTIFmD TRUE COPY
"- ~il'~ctor Ed do H. angilinan
,tl, -rL4L'-A-I<'I+~

. ') 0 0 U' '.' ,..,

. i.. (
i , J 1
,j ",O() pHIl1l,e of Representatives
Legislative Archives Service
,t;ERTIFlEDTRUE ~~py .
(PO ".. 1'J1:~" Fl.),;)
"2Dtxr~ Panglhnan ,

HI::~" ABAYA" I .had a p~nding ~otibn~ Mr~ Speaker.,'

THE PF~ESIDII'IC,'" DI:l:::r..f.~I.]:~

~
(1'1",,'
,. I:~l.,.,'.'"- .'.., \.T",-,""
. ~.,.~. -::. i'l'".. nu\,~~"
.,.,. .. ' v1.(~~.~5!1'

'co.:1:1 (.:~ c:ti, v\"{~ I)]"i Y:i.le(_:,~ "f rom t he .G(~~r,\ t. ].'~-...'(n~;\Il, ""''",".)iO
, .. ,',,"
(""] ,_0' ...ty
,. ",", ('.,' ~

.', ]'1
~'J ... ,.. t. I'it..
.,' ('.~(':.l)
",' '1.,.(:.In~:\n
"1 .". om ' tOo....
'j' 1,.. '1 . . ....
.'<:L.<')(JC.~-::~l) (-.....'.I:.y
i"

I'II:~.. CABOCHAH (G).. T han I-:. YPu" 1"1,.." S peo<l<.o, r: "

o .$ ,
"1',;;eTi.ng

Fe~d .on,'the front page of a major

THE PF,ESIIlIHG (jFF.ICEI:~ (l'Ii-" F'.l".)" .Just, <.. O1:I.l1t("[:';;" The

I,. ~x C..tH:.ln
r- .'. i~
.1. Z... n"
. i.(::-' r:
..H:!11 t'l.. (.....,...
I1I<:\n City

DistF:Lct of) Is~b~la, the Honorable' Rod61fo A~ba~o,. be

:I. ,.,'
ilOOO?8
 .5 II 00 ; P "mi.'se of Representatives
. . Legislative Archives Service
. . ~ERTIF!ED TRUE COpy
. '. ~iretl"" ~H. Pangilinan
. "C(:q .t~~tJ;'.:J;'s::;_ _-
there any obj ect'ion to the motion? (Si 1 ence) The' Chair

"qLlestion of p~~~c~l~l'and collec:tive privilege"

II 10.\
.f" d J" ., ....:_.. .Ju
I"H:t-c:......1.11':', .' '"..... 't'IE' 1l~.;ri:\C 1'1.. :t.. .n~? . ......,....
t ,.O~ ..'1oW
'\. . tI'16\" t'r._ J.,1ji:1.~::. on 0.\
. . . .

(:lr th(.)~5i,~ f'o::I. n(J d :1. <;;CjU,\i1 :1. f':I. COl t:l.on pn).c:(;;(0d :1. n\:l~;; Lrr the, C.cWIELEC

o 'foY vi~)lating the gun ban.' 'This;. is Ilc'ttrue; M~"

th(-? Pi:U;;t" ;';:0 Y(~~(":\I'~:;J: rH~V('::"""" C6\!"t"j,Ed ~It.(n "

.,
-tllat I" joilled this 110110rable a~d aug~~~t bOdy, Your Honor"

I h<':'t. Vf.; . .:i C):i. rH:.H:1

of

1 \(~'. pi r~("
:' , ; t;, :~(,;,.ll
'\. "
..;':\ ".- t-.; .~
.. r.\}"\{:' (')I~G
"'':'"
. (:) of' tl1(~.~ ilH..~(" ".
..:~. . . ~. "1'.L.E:
I'iC)nc.q.;~ '1 . .I
dl1CI ~
,~.;~.t .1.0 t
-t' .... :l,.c n

,~.,

I no I~'
.
my nE'I::;h(~,~w II . Cone,:J l"f:~~;sm{:H'I' ~Jc)':;(::' 1I Bc).;i :i. (.;. \ II Ci~boc:h(':1.n :1. i. ~:;

'facing-any ~:i.sq~~lifiC:~tj,_on pro(:~ed~rygs~

It: i'),7\;;; k:l.rici clf r:;hi,d.I"OI<":'t 1'lcHl;;;od Lo c"l1J. me .up tl'1:!:;;;

.H(i." '::U:;:~;;l.U'('N:' .m~ th(':,l. t. hE' I'H~V~01'"

:i. n t (.? 1'-\l :i. (~~ ~tJ E-::,\ d .
h(,~\ 1A1~';.1i; CJuot(:~d by' th(~-:- 1"epol",t({~I" (':u1d
..

. ~'\
... -,'
.' .c,
 ~.1 :: 00 P n lrl ..

. '. . ...
any d1~qtja.l1f1cat~on pl~ocee~1ngs..
I House of Representatives
I Legislative Archives Service
. '. I.... , . 'CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
~.,

. Tharll;:. you,;' f'h'".., SP(~c.\I':.el>,1 , '

.
, ')
4l1;~
tor Edt. a ,H. P.ngilinan
Time: _-"_ _ ~
I
THE: I"'I"Em:,D:U.JG OFFICEI', .~ I'll"..
I '
Flu,) .. Than k you" D~;n,U. .,i""n
f~om Caloot.n C i t y . . 1
!

The Maic)rity'Floor Lead~ru

. . r .'I

I
,Ivil~,;, ZAr'IOI~A.. IVIIC .. , ~:;P~'f.'.I'i'~I'" ~J(" "<I'(~ :i.n n0ce:i.pt of 'Een,,\tc~
. I.
, C(JnCI.Il"~0>nt I~e<;c)lut.:i.cm 1lc)", 9.1., th(~ fuJI '\:<"xt p'f 'oh:i.d' I "'Ill
I
J~~ad~' '1
I ,

"RESOLVED, by the'Senate." The .HOl.,ISe ,of Rep,,-esenta:-

ti.vE-~m. c.on cu t...vj.n9 .. Th.::,tJ, :i.tr::.Hn{; '7 ~='.nd ~3 tl'H~ C~:rl(~nd{:tf C)f..
::::({!i:;'9::iDn~::. ~I:o.v . th(:~\ I'
F:i. '"l:th F~(:)(~ll,l:J.(:\I'. SE~s;~:;.:i-.on of tl1f.-)
'. ~ -.
.CC)f191'(:~:Sj.-::';.
. 1'ClJ.ID~)';::
of th(0. J~h:il:i.pp:i.rHi'f:;' 1:)(0 am(-?nd({~c1 t.o ,"'e;'H:I
I
<:H:;'

117.. l:((i:{'-E;umpi".j,on o f b.(.:)~:;s:i.C)n J.ant.t~l.F'Y :1.3:1 :J.("l9~:: to

Febnla,,-y 7, rathEr thanl (Fe~rLlar.Y) 5" 1992.
" I

.':8..
Adjou,,-nment Session ,Feb,,-ual"y 8 of instead
of Febn.lary6" 1992 tal 11ay '2'4, '1992"
'I " ' \,jfth
!\'Iay I tniJVt-;: -tha of' th(0 j..!C)U ~5('2 of l=(ePl'(?~:;~n ta t :i. V(~~-:ij. . con c:u'!': :i. n

:t.h~ COIlCl.lI"'renl:. F~(.;.)solut:i.(.)n.c..1,,,

'~I 't I".'. f:h~~n<":\t:({~!1 1\"" E)n"l::i.tli-?cl:: f:.) E,\ 11 <":\ te
I'
~1
Concllrrerl'l: Re~dluticn ~Io .. b.L"
I
I
THE F'I',EEIDIHG 01"1"1: (;EI;( (i'II' .. Fua ) '"
I
obj ection to' the motion? (Silence) The Chai,,- ileal"s rron e ]
II '

_ i'll',.. . Z'''l1''1DPA:, 1'11"" "'pea f.-:.e'f" . molY I i~nnrjl:ln,c:e'._t.hid. ,tomC)I'TmO

{":\i"I.:(~~rnOOIT tl.,l(~~ tl.J:I..I.1 I"B:\V(~';- our ~5(~-::J.-::;:I.c,n -:i~ t.au~t:l.n(J TiJUI" o. ..ctock ..an
, . ' .
,I .' "
the a:rtel"'nOC)l!" (.~nd on Fl".:i.d;,~y~ rno.rnIn q l-'JI"J(~~n. WE" ('\J"il1 ad.:ioLlI'n
'I
sine die, . Ol.ir-- session ~Jill begin at ten D' cl o ck in the-

'-1'16.1"1') :i.n.9. II

THE 1:"I~Ef:; I D I i'IG OFF I CEF, .~ f"ll'" " '. Ti'}('~ C~haj.v. nC)tf::'~:i
I
FI()"I'
I ..

. I
I,

I
, , " "IM"IWAT--:1. :,.\,,00. P" 1'1"

,HE
-r . I.."I" '-''''1'1
'~I::.,:: ... ).I.'., ."" ,('1-,..'
"'IC' (),..'.... ..... ::.rv (II'r'". F"l.la ) "

(Si.lence) The Ch61ir- heat's none; the

C",,"I_""'"
,,;,J. '':'~~ ' : . , . '11 'Y ,."" (1'I.,V'. ..' 'J'.".' 1..'.'.I,f:~~~J.;
~:~ _ . "..llJ.'..,.
.I_~

o
. Honse of Representatives .
Legisiative Archives Service
. ~ERTIFrED TRUE COpy .
'., -firWp Edgar .II pangiJinail.
frae. A Jme:' , .'
 REGODON 1 02-05-92 5:05 P.M.

(PO M,r. Fua)

MR. ZAMORA . ... Locsin, Veloso, Loreto, Horca, Daza,

and Nalupta. I so mcve. MJ:" _ Speaker ~

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua). Is there

objection to the motion? (Silence) The Cha Lr- hears none;

---;-----c----=-====
the motion is approved.
~---~--~----'-,---
CONSIDERA'l'I,bR OF CONFEIlli'NCE COMMITTEE REPORT

\.. ~
., .J begin

ain ' Ce:ifercnee GOlnlllittee Report, as,

.Q.
, - "

eporto, on

= - , H.-1-eGI';':---

AN AOT PROVIDING FOR TIlE LOG,".L ELECTIGN-GF THE CITY

OFFIOIALS OF 'I'RECE HARTIREC CITY, PRCWH1GE OF C~~.- - - - - - -

The Coufelc:llce. having signed the

COlI ;-ex 8l.!.ce COlhmi L LGC' Rc:PC'Jl t. ~ nia~ I tliove 'that "'oTe now approve

said COue;L encc:. Canhll~ L bee RepoL -::. ':

APPROVAL OF CONF111ffiNCE COHHI'I''I'EE REPORT ON H.B.NO. 31i981----------

~HE PRESIDING OFFICER (H~'. Ft1,;.). Is there

ubjecl.. lolI Lu L.he nlot~o119 (Silt-nee::) The Chai::" hears Bone;

the mo Liull b~ appt 0 tj e~j.

CONSIDERATION OF GOUFERENGE COHMITTEE REPORT

ON H.B. NO. 35379 AND S.B.'NO. 1492
(

,!"JR. ZAMORA. Mr. Spea];:er; may I move that we now begin

con,idel'-ation of the Conference Committee Report on, the'

disagreeing" provis.ions of Senate Bill No. 1492 and House

Bill No. 35379, both of which create a "National

Commission for Cu lcur-e and Arts and 01' other purpos.es.

,-,-,~--~-----

--------------------~,----'----'
1 'j (i 0 p') ~
~)
J .......
, .. REGODON 1 02 05 92 House 01 g;.q,ffiiieli1lti~s

I eo move, "r Speaker, , "ft~=:

-------~~---_:_Al'iPlUiiiTAr._mn"R;;:rn"i'i'l:;mJ7'l.. _ ci'"'n_rT'1~j[,::J~,J-~
.'
; ime:
APPROVAL 0]' CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPOR'f' .
ON H.B. NO. 35379 AND S~B. NO. 1492
Is there any

objeotion to the motion presented by the Najority' Floor

Leader? (Silence) The Chair hear's. none; the. motion is

apPlooved.
CONSIDERATION 'OF CONFERENCE CO~1MITTEE REPORT
ON H.B. NO. 35148'AND S.B. NO. 240

MR. ZAMORA. ~jr. Speaker, mav I move tha~ w.e now

cone i der- the, Conference Comml ttee Report on the d~sagreelng

provisions or Sena~e BlI! Nu. 240 and IlvU5i'> Dill No. 351'l6"

both of wInch provid.,,---rOL LIla 1 ecegnition of Nat i ona 1

r'
, )
Treasures, "Mga \\Jata;tangri ng . _
Livlng

trad~ tlonal Io~l!'lH:;,<'!a:YL''it'''s".:------------------:---~

.--~---

--:----------AP"..,."PffiR~O"iHVALOF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

, ON H.B. NO. 35146 AND S.B. NO. 240
Is t)lere any
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua).

obj eotion 'from tjle floor? (Silence) There being none; the'

same is her~by approved.

MIL l,m1URA. j.h. Gp,:rdEel', maY I mnVe that we oonsider

(,omm it Lee Rc:;pen~t on th~ disagreeing

i
Conference provis one
34814 which
of Senate Blil Nu. ::lSi) ana Ho'.~g@ Ei i 1 Nfl
1P.&t..<?r n i t.y leave. from 45
increase the compuisoI :OY period of
g'Gr-:ter~ J .in.crease the
days to 80 days and wl.r.ich i.n
_. __ .. _ - - - - ' - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~l------,-------'--'--.--
..
2
'100033
 1 02 05 Q" 5:05 P.M.
REGODON

mat,errn ty benefi tb for W'Oll1envor:HH''l 10 prj vats' sector.

so move, HI" ~ Speaker ~ "--

APPROVAL OF CONFERENcE Gm-MITTEE REPORT
ON H.B. NO. 34814 AND S.B. NO. 380

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua). Is there any

objection? (SilenGe) Having heard none; ,the Chair he r-eby

approv.es the mo t.Lori ,

CONSIDERATION OF CONF'ERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

ON H.B. NO. 1172 AND 3.~. NO. 1452

MR. ZAMORA. Mr.. . Speaker, lHay' I luG,? e to con.::iclor

Conference Comm.i,ttee N.eporr, on th~ dioagl 8c:i:ng ~irovi':1ion::

of Senate Bill No. 1402 and House 15111 No .1772 'i,1,ieh

provide free legal asslstance to duiopec. Lcd Pc! ,",ellS undel'

custodial investigatl0n for the COmmibt::iiOH of an 6cns8.

I so move , Hr _ bpeaker.

APPROVAL OF CUNli'ERENCE COHMII'fEE REPORT

ON H B.NO. 1772 AND S.B. NO. 1452
THE' PRESIDING OFFICER (I'll'. Fua).

objeotion to the moLion? ,( Silence) The Chair hears none;

the mo t'Lon i's approved.

CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE COMHIrTEE REPORT
ON H.B. NO. 22232, AND S.B. NO. ~O?

Elil "1'10. ''''A~

b::7 ~
'" fe'"
6:110:
;,hoi q """"".'068 mav I ask that the' Chairman
_ ;/,; "'b"t-:l_~ e- :f: -

G;~ Ymath end ,Sports. the Honorable

of . the COlluniLcee
~~' ~e RCe=~I-~j~ed to be~in his sponsorship~
(.;ongrese:Illal}VVeuo:- ~ ....
-=' -J:::1 - -
 02'05-92

ER iM F ) The Gentleman from

THE pRESIDING OFFIC Y'. IU~ .

~--------C:----;S:;:;P;;O;;:;N;;:;S;;::;onRC'iSHrrInp"""srrp'"E"'.t;;""'C1'rIi OF REP. WImBJ;>-'-.'-~----------:-

,MR. WEBB.
Youth
As
and Sports I)evelopJllE;>nt,
. , lei ~o gpoDSOr the Conference
and

Commi t t,ee epol'

Bill NO. 22232 and Senate Bill ~~e. 207.
the",e Lt<,e bills seek, to grant, our
'MY' .
Speaker,
athletes t:.ax c~:eH~r'tiOI1S for all l)rizes and awards' received
sports tournaments and
i.1l lee::.l or international"
) ,- a incentive for t;hem to bring more ,honor-

and gloY'Jr to our country. The entire Filipino people.

atte.:::!:ted to what t.his Represent,ation called the Twelve Days

nf, G11~1'Y in Manila :during t;he just completed 16th

Soutlleast Asian Games held in Han i.La from 'November 24 i 1881

to December 5 of last year.

It was not just a moment of,triumph and cheers for

the Filipino but it, demonstrated our 'ability to r-a Ll.v

behind the COllllllon cause 'and make the most out of it.

Hr. Speaker, our athletes 'performed above par

during the 16th SEA Games in spite of these two bills. And

certainly,

Bouse or Representatrves

~~o;~rn",.,_
---:-:---'------~~----:~------- ,----

') (l nf) :1 !')

 l'o'- :1 ' ....
c. 'l> I., ,"',; _fJ p .. m,,
House of. Representatives
Legislative Archives Service
(PO - MI'-. Fua, i Tt-R....U'-E~COPY
/ CERTIFIEDx..

.if these two bills

t - 7 Director Edga
o(t" '

will be enacted
H. Pangilinan
Tlme:_----

into

la.l,.J l?Y t:.hE.\ Pn~sident:< .then I arn positive that ~'Ile sh2-.11

garner not just. more 901d medals' in the next SEA Gam~s to

be ..
O t~

place"

''-''

o of ~he M~jority Floor Lea~er7

APPROVAL OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

ON H.B . 22232 & S.B. NO. 807

i'-1I~: ZAt10RA May I .move fo~ the approval of the

C0r11"=et'-ence CrJffimi-t't,r-2e R~.2port!l Mr= 8p~akei'-=

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 1 ,-

,~ thel'-e anv.
-,'
ob.i ec t i on- tc: the moti.an? {Silertee} ',Havin~,;1 he.~t-d nt1f1e1; the

Ch.:::i.:Ltr- .co_p,siders the, b i, 11 ~1.ppn:JYed ..

o CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT \...

ON H.B. NO~ 4987 & S.B. NO. 1771

MR= ZAMORA" Mrn Speake~, may I move that we now begin

consideration of t~e Conference Commit~ee Report on the

1771 which provide the

1
r', ,..

n00036
."/" .
>
l"abl ig,::Hi - .1

iurvivorship, disab~li.t1 and other benefits of t~\e memb~rs

Office~ and the Legal Staff of tJ,s ~epartment of JUStlCSg

APPROVAL OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

ON H.B. NO. 4987.st S.B. NO. 1771

a.ny

ClbJf::oc:tion to th!2' motion? (Si.l{~nce) The-=? C:-ha.il'~ !l(=ars nDne~

"

th~ moti6n" is hereby ipproved~

CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

,ON H.B. NO. ~3904 & 3.B. NO. 1935

the Conference Rep6rt on ~he disagreeing provision of

Senate 8ill No~ 193~ and House 8ill Nou 33904 b6th '~f which

an II''iteg~~a.ted t"lindanao.

defining its powers and funct~ons and providing funds

thereforS3 .1 so moVe, Mr= Speaker=

APPROVAL OF CONFERENCE COl'iMITTEE REPORT

ON H.B. NO. 33904 & S.B.~m.' 1935

'0, THE PRESIDING OFFIOER (Mr, Fua). any

objEH:tion to t.he mc)ti"on'} (Si. Len ce, The Chair' hei::\rs. none t :

the motion i~ hereby approved~

MR. ZAMORA. Mr. Speaker.

THE F'i'i:ESIDII\IG OFFICER '(1'1'-'. Fua)" The l'1ajcwi.ty F'Lcio r

1;lousc of Representatives
Logislative Archives Service
':f: P,TIFIED TRUE COPY

/l
J:D~'ty
Jal.~;~ :
24 al' angilinan
()!l0037
 Tab l.Lq.an - 1 02-05-~92
" '("
~ . '. '.b 7',' .

CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

ON H.B. NO. 10 &, S.B. NO. 1648

MJ'(" ZAI'lOFi:A. ,l"lr. Speaket", 'mioW I move, ttla t ,we 'consi.dfer

.Houaa ,.Joi(,t. ResolLltio[1,No. 10, and Senate Bill No . 1648, a

joint ~esoluti~h amendin~ the joint resol~tion creatinQ th~

Lef3.is~ative-:E~,u2cut.~veBases Courrci.L: :2.nd i:J.n act '::i.ccelerating

th.e. conversion of mi l.i.ta~-y resel"-vations into

pr-OdLu:tive uses;

",,--- ' ,APPROVAL OF CDNFER~NCECOMMITTEE REPORT

ON H.B. ,NO. ~O & S.,B~ NO. 1648
/

PRESIDIN~; the~e
o ............ . '
objection
THE

1:0
OFFICER

:thG'? motiop? (S:f..,lence)

(Mr. PUB)." Is

. Tre Chair' he,3.rs .flone~

.ariv

'the, motion is, hereby aJ~proYed"

~.ccept the" ::3.mendm.en,'ts, ~Ltbmi.ttec;l by' the 8ena.te on House .E~i 1'1

No. ' 27696 which is, an Act Granting

Island of Mindanao~

THE PRESIDING OFFICEIi (Mt-. F'ua),' I s: the t-e . .any.

ob i ect.iol'1 to the" moti.on? (Eli 1 J2f1Ce) The C\";.ai r hears nCii:le ~ "
I
the. !llot:L(Jri "l.s {;;1p'proved"

MH. ZAMOFIA. Mr, Speaker, may 1 move that ,~e accE,pt

t.he" amer:ldments"" 'proPQsed' by thE! Sen2'te on "Hou~"e Bi 11, No n

to Establish, Or:tera'te and l"Iaird:ain Domestic Ai t','

"" . Honse" of .Represeiita~iYes "
Legislative Archives Service ."
PfCERTJFIED TRUE COpy,
~ 'lDin~tPxEdga~gilinan
'fl~riA r
p-
'
")f)1f"r: "
il00038
 Tablig,an _.'.1
':'-f",
" I."" 7-

\
Spraying Ser:vices ~!ith Dava.o a.s its ma.jor, huo , I so ~Qve.~

'Is ,thet-,e. ',any'

.'

the motion is approved.'

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MH.. Z!-WIORr'l" '

", r-eCE''55s ..

THE F'RESIDING OFFICEH (MI", Fua)., Session is
',.

suspend~=c;! ~

u It . Nas r5:.1.3 p~m" .. .I

'.
House of Representatives

g
' i.eg;Slative Archives Service
. ERTIFmD TRUE COpy
, ,
',jlirl'flMroyE r H. PiuigiIinan
te!.- Hf\ ' U:le:: "

4
!!n0039
 . ~ ,
, \] '," 't) 't1
~' ,
..,,/,.,,'d' BCNGULTO - 1 5:15 P.M.'.

House of Representatives ..
(PO-"MR;' FUA)' Legislative Archives Service.: ,

'. ';f;'RTIFlED TRUE COpy

Edga~~ngilinan
.-

REsuMPTION OF SESSION , Director

.7.:....ttA-y-'m1'Cfi~~::
At 5:19 p.m., the session was resumed. ' v10
,THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua). Session is herebY
resumed.

. ,
MR . ZAMORA. Mr. Speaker-.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua) . Majority Floor
Leader.

. _. -. MR. ZAHORA. May I move that we transferCoffilui ttee

1745 35365
"- Report No. 1533 and , Ho'uae Bill No. 34286 ' from the
Unassigned Business of the House to 'its Business for the
o Day.
MR. TINGA. Mr.' Speaker.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fua). Is there any
objection to the motion?
HR. TINGA. Mr. Spealrer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Hr. Fua). TIle Gentleman from
T,,:~ig,and Pateros?
HR. , TINGA; Yes. Before we act on the latest motion
.- ... --......
..t . . J ..,_.. ()! the Floor Leader, mar~. !lloyefor,the reconsideration, of
of theC:5::m:fel:~nC'e.,C()mmittee, Report, on the
.. ' " ._.)~Cl,selands Authority Bi,ll.
SUSPENSIONQF SESSroN,

MR. ROHERO. Hr. Chairman, may I ask for a one-~inute

.,. ,.';."

suspension.
THEPRESIDING OFFIqER (Hr.'Fua). Session is suspended

1
 -'~-'2'+05''''92-'''' 5:15 P.1"l.

.".,',
-'farone' minute.

ItWdS5:19 p;m.

Honse of Representatives
Legislative Archives Service
JfERTIFIED TRUE COpy
lal~1ftEdga o~, Pangilinan

2
noonA1
 , , " ir- .QUI S~lUNPO 2 2-5-9'7 5:55 P.i"l .
"~'1 -::,,,,--~==:...:.:::...:.::-=------,-=---,-~--...,...'----=--=-...:..:::...-_------=..:-=~~~ _

(F'.O" i"IR. FUA).

RESUMPTION OF SESSION'

.''It 5:56 p.m., the ",ession-was r eeumea ,

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FuC\) The seSSIon IE;

resumed.

MR. ZAMORA., Mr . Speaker.

THE' PRESIDING OFFICEF, (Mr. Fua). The Majority FloQt-

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
>

i"IR;, ZAMOF,A; Mr. Speaker, m'ay T move, to ad i our-n un t.Lt

four o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

THE. PRESIDING OFFICER (~1r. Fua). Is thel"e ~ny

objection? (Silence) There being none; the session .is

hereby adjourned.

It was 5:56 p.m.

HQuSe of Representatives :
Legislative Archives Service .
TRUE COpy'
,..
H. Pangilinan
Date: lme:

". '~

1 '
':.- .
'j (I 0 04 2
 ANNEX 9t 1"

It "f.~
,"''It,

r
It
j
I,.
I
i,:

j'J
'I
I
t"
I)..

l
I
r
!
i

luis D. Be/lraD
i
!"

!
j,
 Af\[NEX '~B"

to
::..
 7CC."~,,-:c~'c--r:'"'::~''"~~'''~'""'~=~"'a''''
"'i!J!U~StllD~~;"fl~~r~~~'lJ,~.;lfg"" .-. i
". ,.~,
~\ ;~'. '." .

AnJ~nOIBalyat.QAR.
'I ~1t
, .

'. .,M. . AIlLJllo!G. ~lli'.I!/~.,.}.t

,1oll!~ WIIIIIIll(OI!UI.'ed tl>~lII1C>11il'-
a.,llul-... ~. ~ h.'.IIdI.l!la. .,'.!.'!"'!"'.'.'. ~. 'l.b."'.h...ill11.d. 'llIlmIl.tO. tll.".O..rd
~~ ~&-!lI,=~" Why lore UnleoaridAYIl"hlIIdllIC ....' '
' ' ' " ' . .' .

,1""Jl'",,~"'ne,at!b~~~~h
tI(~ ~.l1tYLQdl!f~ l ' l l I ! l : " . ' ..' .'
'_~':""'}~.J"*'~ 'I1ala "lI~_Ii
. f ."0' n.~:, ,....... I r ......U l' .'GOIIt.lii'iIO:l....
__
~11etlll!4II~~I.. ,~"'!~~tt. EmU p.Jurlido .' .~~w~..~ ~_. ;Cot~~'Ii't'
~.o,Ijl,lI. r"'J(l\ltIl.,
~bliIi\lt'" ~~.'.l!llCI.Wll
.' .
hilllnol..IIlIdtrjtb*1~';" hR 'i~.+..,.~ . '.'
. '.' . '.'". .'Iloi lI!It'tH.'~"t'e1~!lI'w."
'..... _ .. ~ .......".:_
.:~ ""t.O
. '. ".~"'~.' . ....,'1Jol'
"'. ' .~....... ..' . .. . " . ... .'~IIiIil:"'.,IJIeoI' . . ..Hj~.'.'Wkli1
' .., .
tile.
1'iDI*'iI:,=.litttt~"""=3.: ..
'. . ,. ...
Onihe.Aliie41t~i.Ji _ _ ~abllllm . ; .The~ddalC~lllIIoCICoOd' -.~"'.~~"N!!~~"('Xs
. ." .
.
. J1[tti'L.,...... _'iItII'_"~
....~';~tIIil!c.-.'W
.. ~. the DAR Hc~ -Ied

0 '." 'J'.i .'.'IL..'.UIM. '!rI

. ... ' il I I . ' . Yll.llthllr.NlI.0I.oo:ot.. o0277.
......~4~~ 1-'; <' ..'.. . ,.. ~PIl!~ by \let RI1im<i Mil drlll1'" to
. . ll.331!i!llllorPSO.~ ~lflio:lWt et'!'~
dr.bLW~..
QlMtllhliittl hblllln!lllril:!,Hl.-.: u_

~nallllillt.otl>e llHl\llo.
.
~.. . :J:'t4:I~.!'....,:.:::;~....
. .."IIi!I>, I'!' . . . '.. e,e:.p.
:aM a .munldj;o.l
,oIdlr"C,
toubl UJ1l1~~lII!IlIiuII'II1I1.letl~ by:::: ..;:~iH
b o I t.l l . . ~."~L"!I."."
.. ""'.':;;;~i1'!U't
... .:v ..
J.I"~'~'!)I'.IC.
" 'JJiJIII."P"..'
.
1.-.:t1fl!li)1'~
. ' . 1 e"
Iio
.M . ' . by.,. ~
t&i'~.
.. ' 'a
'f. ca....lJIIl, _.ItlNll.~""
...
I'reIldl!lll...AllulA. II ........ tblf i~
.. '., . III flll'. ....~W . . i .....
....qlH!llt0ll:l!d teI1aIn bamk ~,rzlllle .. 'It " ,.,.,. ...
..'II:;tM.
>,....iliLiMd
!i
.}.,
~n""!l.~' '" .W;.~D'!~!*,,,,
~ :' II~ ' _ .
-, '.".' did A~d
h'Ul1l1f a.. III.lbotdl... lz 11l\l&"al.th"r~1l_.11M!lt"'.I_.
~ellln1,a")~R-l'f!WYia-sp;. llaar'1ll'tt ~lll.otllll1 0( liMI CllJUJltuUPfl. At' " , ....' ...?1 F" ..... .'
......~.\_,. JCII~
::"nJ:.i,dr,lIIlWJ
'.\.' , l i P ".., .' ,..... .. ~ O!Jl.\"IlI'r..l.bl_.llltal..'Mad 1.k:ItI\'t,~1On13Iulw'W~o_tor .. ~.," ~.:r~". ~IO~.
dlIlllla!bw
l~ ~i lr2C ~d~.eteil~tht.i11kln.eo"'I<l.' ll' m~ oIlhlfHoUH bI BIoPt_nlJ. C!MIp, 11.~Iie,.. . . . ....., 110M
r,;. .'r;m-:!.
'~~.~
.'~~01r. .l)~

~'i...... '' ...':.

It'
.
",.'
..'.iW lIoIji .I.f '. ...
. ...Ia. ," tile .....
.
.. , eon$rm"llilnWIlM!
1Ii11lJalhll
11~_~~po~':.:~lIl;:r 1n
"""'}!~,!-~...u~ '. ."JIlI' .. "'z
. !MDt "'liMI t9W1;MJ.Im\,
l'-mqhol4"nyClllle,llllI<tiotemplll)" Fir ,II.. r, . ..
or all)' ~biIlY1- .' 'l1iereeenll!ll-ll" 1e.vthqwollel/llt
.1~...iIlIlll:Y, tiulltuIrIel\talJlY thetelll. tlJ. 1JJ1 BQbollholild .e.... poooj:iIe lWIaclll
" . 11...lIidled::n'.'lilin 'Code
..,.I!!l'!i", "~I!'.~l\Il'!I~,:tbt!!IOO!bI)l,lit'P!I>lk~~to
~I"""I~ c~d~~ .... .~
'Gatt.hlt~ft!ltlll>dltaml !JII."1t'~ltln
~111d.I'"~dliIonI'<>Wl'led~t.rCllI!dMolItiiMiinlIl~~f'hcit."br
c~all~!lI:.lbetrlU~d1ai .4uf,. .meilluildMI.
ht.leIii\,.Otif /;,lUlls!"" "~"i~~'IMiiii,i~biUl~
. 1ilIb..... .
'2~j;:.~~_~f~t~.,_
(,.It,. i"'

. .t..fi/.:llif.ie.........,.".. ,
. ," <. ~ :'ii{... '. loHl~.."'''.''1 ."'.:.. . ,,"".........
"IJlU~._n __ , . ' . . .. Sl'.:ctear l"
""'~'i'
_.-",<~.;-- . lle..ll, lt. i-.t
, 'rdi'" _ , .R"na
- llzp, .
- ,,' '. -,. ','
..thirl'ori.c.t,'tl>e:':<lI.
-,',,". - - -,""" e-
.. hft.llI,~""" ......_~._ c.m..rlnet. N.orte -'- bI.th<!
.... \Jal ~Ih '\:Ity IIbd.IllVnl.d.~ll_l_
',I ",- ... - - , , : ' " _ ,c ,

. ... . ".."."..' il.".... , '.'." " i " ' " .ie" UllIto,cl
.ttii_...
. . . . _ _Jt.ilciJ~.flliil.,11li.:rw
*_~IIidft_.....re,
, .['i'iIli ocandall.l1M IIICOfllll'eu- ~ _d. ,\klro MOllo, In ,,0IlCIu~11nI" ~
... ,l:!!"*fIf'" .1~llIai, UCP8 ~1<lt,11 ...uln.ylola\tCIJI bllb. ""petuon.oIhlIMi"'olIItundJ...ldofn.
... lta Cll

....tl;_-.'
.l:lf~il'."I."a:l ~''',~_ . Ali1';"""'~"IIt~I"(lf,.~.lllIar.s
.'~"~".llh'i'jb"'doiIl'~ ",*.~.lIId
Miflfl=..l!.lhli,j.oe&.,.;. :.
if', 1',;, . , .
CO""t~l,IUQlII. TheOlher pllbllto/llc:l!ll,... II!II colld~ Il'l~ llJCtropoiltlll
TIna~n. ~eMaYt\!' Cba(l": "VI!*o IIl'lY lind ,outU ~ ~DnI_ tll lhdlllldJ..,
..' .". ..~~~ hDl tlf IllClUcil!d,llllM ~oDllll,,1l<lri.zI ~~ Code."h.... II!I)'. doubt.II.~aper. 111
~.iI'P~.UorQ,ielr.-. lJIbt.llon.. lKIl
.. ll'.-,.'j!"el<:al lhM.. all.~!!'lOleli. Mab.Il.1lke.ltioP'~IIl".PI.ua
.........,'~; ....\l!r:1.. ~..,.
(j IIlwt. . . ~ftollli............
'IJli{,'YlOl}'lnIi~~~
A.'~ .~. ~~ ~~-
,. ., ~~
.. ..' .. . .. , ,. pJl>U~om"~lm_dhDll~ldlWOllfJDDr"
l"bo-llI',~d"ll"'~~AlIIl.
_~Ill~to t.lK11'B~4.,_t.c>
..... ,."oan with-
.ta'"'.....ll!l~ 7 "'_IlUlI~ly6
eiII1hq~ I zml'lOl.dll~yer,bllll
wltie~alhC!ltlleIblbyTOWMdI..
...... . .1o,"li!hl. . . . ' "I'..
0
. ~.t ,~
PI! '4I.lI!If.. .,."!'~""'" '. II.'.1"UW..
..
.... ,::1!t.-."".J_ile.j)i. tMe."=np'If-... the PC
OO tll.tll
.. '!'~~,.d , t )'MJR..
lhe PC9G1l11!S ..~4a1J.llDlli'dlllR~10 ddunt~I'h(v..QU 10111", ..,...Wh
lk(d(d,Jt IQIW!ihthe
ftlzm ..
oI~ '}:~IlV"rtJ9' 'tIt.IT .U~I th.lrtell......llon.,~ ~01,,"(1- 11l'1~'Hl;lI'fl"I. .

o C)
 ANNEX" 10"

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
SENATE

2llecofb of the jenate

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
JULY 26 TO OCTOBER 5,1993

VOLUME 1, NOS. 1 - 27

Prepared by the Debate Reporters Division

and the
Legisiative Publications Staff
Legislative Operations, Secretariat of the Senate
under the supervision of
SECRETARY EDGARDO E. TUMANGAN ~I9RTIFIEI) TRUE COP l
o.Nv~
ANTONIA P. BARROS
iJJlllECTOR :m:
Ir.ES. RECOIlDS llr ARCHIVES S'I/t

----------------- ----_ ... _----- .--.-

 Referral of Shahani's Speech RECORD OF THE SENATE
Maceda just wauted to have an investigation, I would have
expected that there would have been more' prudence aud a
respect for facts before such a matter was brought up before
this Chamber.
Thauk you, Mr. President.
Senator Romulo: Mr. President.
The President: The Majority Leader is recognized.
MOTION OF SENATOR~OMULO
(Referral of Senator Shahani's Speech
to the Ethics Committee)
Senator Romulo: Mr. President, I reiterate that the mat-
ter be referred to the Committee on Ethics as asked by the
Gentle Lady from Pangasinan herself.
The President: The statementwill go to the Committee
on Ethics.
o Senator Romulo: Mr. President, we have two speakers
for the Privilege Hour. We have, of course, other matters to
take up after the Privilege Hour. S 0, with the permission aud
consent of our Colleagues, we shall have one-hour Privilege,
not more than that.
For the first speaker in the Privilege Hour, I ask that the
distinguished Minority Leader, the Gentleman from Quezon,
Senator Wigberto Taiiada, be recognized.
Senator Talad: Mr. President.
The President: Senator Tatadis recognized.
Senator Tatad: Mr. President, with the indulgence of the
Minority Leader, I just would like to amend my earlier mani-
{'station regarding Senate Bill No. 1333. In addition to the
"-lames mentioned as Coauthors, Senators Mercado and Revilla
are also Coauthors of the same bill.
Thank you very much,
The President: So noted.
The Minority Leader is recognized.
PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF SENATOR TANADA
(Does the Government Need a Solicitor General?)
Senator Tafiada: Thank yon, Mr. President.
108
Vol. I, No.4
Mr. President, I rise to speak of an event that seemed at
first to involve unrestrained muck-throwing between two fra-
ternity brothers over what appears to be a battle for turf aud
spoils.
The occurrence, billed by the Philippine Daily Inquirer
columnist Conrado R. Banal III as "Suspender Kid vs. Flash
Bernardo," could have truly provided a comic relief to a nation
grown weary of daily blackouts and never-ending tales of
police involvement in criminality.
But not so, Mr. President, if one takes a hard look at the
protagonists. For the parties are both public persona, both
lawyers of considerable clout the "Kid;' being former Solici-
tor General Francisco Chavez, while the "Flash" is Antonio
Carpio, the Chief Legal Counsel of the President of the Repub-
lie.
The accusations or innuendoes of improprieties that for-
mer top government lawyer Chavez and presidential counsel
Carpio flung at each other, which ranged from unfreezing of
suspected Marcos Swiss dollar deposit to control of Oriental
Petroleum, tram an influential law firm cornering transactions
to illegitimate property acquisitions, are indeed scandalous, to
say the least, Mr. President. They deserve prompt investiga-
tion by the anti-graft agencies and prosecutory arm of the
government.
But these matters are not the focus of my concern, Mr.
President. Instead, what I would like to look into - for pos-
sible remedial legislation, especially at this critical period in
our national life when there is -widespread agitation for the
cleansing of our police and judicial institutions, the two vital
organs in our system of justice - and focus on is thequestion
of ethics on the part of the former and the current solicitor
general.
Mr. Francisco Chavez has already denied that the unfreez-
ing of the suspected Marcos Swiss dollar deposits in the Bank-
ers Trust AG of Zurich occurred while he was the Solicitor
General. Mr. Chavez is telling the truth for it is a fact that the
suspected Marcos Swiss dollar deposit was unfrozen only on
March ,24, 1993 when Mr. Raul Goco - not he - was the
Solicitor General.
Whether the unfreezing of this suspected Marcos Swiss
dollar deposit amounting to US$4,136,318 or about P150 mil-
lion in favor of the Security Bank is legal or not is not for me
to determine. Rather, this should be looked into aud resolved
by the PCGG and its counsel, the Solicitor General of the '
Philippines.
",1!RTIFIED TRUE COP',
rlA.J2. ,()j..jv{)Jj) ,
AMTbiN"I'J( P. BARROS
~]ji/ll2CTOR :m:
i:JSG. IlECOillDS /It ARCHIVES SV'
 Monday, August 2, 1993 RECORD OF THE SENATE
True it is that it was Mr. Raul Goco and not Mr. Chavez
who was Solicitor General when the suspected Marcos Swiss
dollar deposit in Zurich was released. But still and all, Mr.
President, former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez, now a
practicing lawyer with former PCGG Commissioner Jose Lau-
reta as partner, should answer fundamental questions of ethics
in his past and present advocacy.
For instance, what is the participation or role of Mr.
Chavez in the unfreezing of this suspected Marcos Swiss dol-
lar deposit in the Bankers Trust AG of Zurich? Did Mr.
Chavez or his law firm act as counsel for Security Bank in this
particular transaction? Can Mr. Chavez or his law firm do this
when not too long ago, as the Solicitor General, he was the
lawyer for PCGG tasked with recovering ill-gotten wealth
from, among others, the Security Bank?
Mr. President, if this is not an unmistakable case of con-
f1ictof interest amounting to professioual misconduct, I do not
know what to make of it.
!) I can only b~ guided, Mr. President, by the rulings laid
'trown by the Supreme Court in a number of cases involving
disciplinary action imposed on errant lawyers in which the
Supreme Court has emphatically declared that, and I quote:
[A] lawyer is prohibited from representing
conflicting interest or discharging inconsistent duties.
He may not; without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose
interest conflicts with that of his present or former
client. (Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1989 ed., p.
224, citing Rule 15.03, Code of Professional
Responsibility; In re De la Rosa, 27 Phil 258; Mejia
v. Reyes, G. R. Adm. Case No. 378, March 3D, 1962;
In re Hamilton, 24 Phil. 100, etc.)
.~ Mr. President, that Mr. Francisco Chavez has ceased to be
Uicitor General when Security Bank may have einployed
him or his law firm as its counsel is of no moment. For, as the
High Tribunal has likewise admonished:
[T]he termination of the relation of attorney and
client provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that
of a former client. The reason for the rule is that the
client's confidence once reposed cannot be divested
by the expiration of tile professional employment.
(Ibid, p. 2, citing San Jose v. Cruz, 57 Phil. 79;
Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569.)
More to the point, Mr. President, and certainly more
Privilege Speech ojTafiada
squarely applicable to former Solicitor General Chavez, is the
following declaration of the Supreme Court:
[T]he prohibition agaiust representation of
adverse interest precludes a lawyer from accepting
employment as an advocate in any matter upon the
merits of which he has previously intervened as a
public official. Having once held a public office or
having been in the public employ, a lawyer should
not, after his retirement or resignation, accept
professional employment in connection with any
matter he has investigated or passed upon in such
office or employ. (Ibid, pp. 232-233, citing Canon
36, Canon of Professional Ethics; Pasay Law and
Conscience, Inc. v. Paz, G. R. No. 1008, Jan. 22,
1980.)
Mr. President, the stern rule against representation of
conflicting interest, said the Supreme Court in the cases of
Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 560, and U.S. v. Laranja, 21 Phil.
500, is founded on principles of public policy and good taste.
It springs from the attorney's duty to represent his client with
undivided fidelity and to maintain inviolate the client's confi-
dence as well as from injunction forbidding the examination of
an attorney as to any of the privileged communications of his
client. The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation
of attorney and client, which is one of trust and' confidence of
the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the
facts connected with his client's case. He learns from the
client the weak and strong ones. Such knowledge must be
considered sacred and guarded with care.
Has former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez lived up
to the canons of the law profession? The Gentleman's answer,
Mr. President, and that of my esteemed Colleagues in this
Chamber is as good as mine .
And this brings me, Mr. President, to the case of Mr. Raul
Goco, the incumbent Solicitor General, the chief legal counsel
for the Government of the Philippines.
As I said earlier, Mr. Chavez pointed to Mr. Goco as the
solicitor general under whose term the suspected Marcos dol-
lar deposit in Switzerland was unfrozen, Mr. Chavez' allega-
tion is confirmed by a letter of Mr. Goco dated March 29,1993
to Atty. Peter Cosandey, the District Attorney of Zurich, in
which Mr. Goco alluded to his letter of March 23, stating that
his office interposed no objection to the release of this deposit.
I must assume, Mr. President, that with his high position in the
government, being no less than the top counsel for the Repub-
lic itself, Mr. Goco must have studied and did quite believe the
merits of the Security Bank's claim that its dollar deposit in
,,;I!!ttTIFIED TRUE COP" . 109
A~~S
lJlRECTOR :m:
t.l:S.RECOIlDS lit ARCHIVES SV'
 Privilege Speech ofTaiiada RECORD OF THE SENATE
Zurich was not part of the Marcos-stolen money, hence it
should be unfrozen and released to it.
But what strikes me as bizarre, Mr. President, is that this
letter of Solicitor General Goco - wbich was the operative
agency or "smoking gun," as it were, that moved the Zurich
District Attorney to unfreeze the Security Bank account -
does not at all show that it was prepared with the participation
or, at the very least, the knowledge of his client, or theparty he
represents - the PCGG.
This is rather odd, Mr. President. For elementary courtesy
- not to speak of the canons of the law profession - demands
that a lawyer should not only consult with, but must have the
acquiescence of, his client before he waives, yields or relin-
quishes the claim of his client, which was what Solicitor
General Goco, in effect, did to PCGG's claim against Security
Bank's account. So what we are now witnessing is the spec-
tacle of a client - the Government represented by the PCGG
- not knowing that its claim had. already been given away by
OIawyer ';ho is supposed to protect its interest.
Mr. Goco's apparent unilateral action, Mr. President,
stands in stark contrast to Security Bank's letter of November
14, 1991, wherein it first asked for the release of its Swiss
account, which was primarily addressed to the PCGG and only
secondarily to the Solicitor General. Mr. Goco should have
done no less, considering that he is representing, or is sup-
posed to represent, the PCGG.
And what is worse, Mr. President, is that cases involving
sequestered or frozen assets are still pending trial, I under-
stand, with the Sandiganbayan. And here we have a Solicitor
General preempting, in a manner of speaking, the 'anti-graft
court in resolving these suits, or at least the case of the Secu-
rity Bank Zurich's deposit.
( ) For whom is Mr. Goco acting or lawyering? Does he
".",present the PCGG or some other party?
Mr. President, it has not been pleasant for me to point out
the "curious" behavior of our two successive solicitor gener-
a1s. They are friends, and one, in fact, had been a fellow street
parliamentarian during the struggle against the dictatorship.
But fair is fair; for public interest is at stake in the cases
handled by the Office of the Solicitor General, it being the
lawyer of the State. If we must reprove the other agencies or
institutions of Government for unethical conduct, we should
do no less to the counsel of the Repnblic.
Indeed, with solicitor generals like Messrs. Francisco
110
VoL I,No. 4
Chavez and Raul Goco, one is led to
ment need a Solicitor General?
Thank you very much, Mr. Presiden .
l k: Does the govern-
The President: The M~Ority LeadL is recognized.
Senator Romulo: Mr. President since there are two
speakers during the Privilege Hour.T as ,with the permission
of the Minority Leader and those who w sh to interpellate him,
that at this point, that we recognize ne other speaker; the
distinguished Gentleman from Catandu es, Qnezon City and
Aldan, Senator Francisco Talad.
The President: Before the Cht recognizes Senator
Tatad, what is the pleasure of Senator R o?
Senator Roco: Yes, Mr. Preside t, just an inquiry, be-
cause last time there was a privilege peech that was inter-
rupted. In fact, our Colleagues were cOfplaining. And in this
one particularly, I am not objecting to tIje procedure, but if this
will be followed subsequently, it is a w~ of rendering ineffec-
tive or diminishing the effect of a PriVi1 ge speech.
1
I just want to register this obse ation, Mr. President,
because sometime in the future we may want to object, sayang
naman if the privilege speeches are di inished in effect be-'
cause of the procedure.
That is all, Mr. President.
The President: Senator Tatad i~ Ognized.
PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF SEN TOR TATAD
(The Population Qu tion) .
Senator Tatad: Thank you very I uch, Mr. President. I
shall try to take not much longer than tljb Minority Leader.
Mr. President, last Thursday, our distinguished Colleague
from Laguna, -in a timely privilege SPfech, disputed the cor-
rectness of the President's claim in is State of the Nation
Address that the country's population rowth rate of 2.3 per-
cent "impairs our capability to improve our quality of life" and
that because of this it had become ne essary for the govern-
ment to embark upon a more aggressi e anti-population pro-
gram to reduce the country's birth rat to less than 2 percent
by the year 1998.
It was a sober, factual and enlig tening presentation by
our distinguished Colleague, but due t, lack of material time,
we did not have the opportunity to rai e any of the points we
,;i:i~J,IFI 0 TRUE COP.
()..,(+ 10JvvfJ<V
. ANTONIA 'P. BARROS
lJJR!'CTOR :m:
~es. RECORD II! ARCHIVES 8Vla

How many more Chinese iIIegals?
.P R~OENT Aquino. dill. llMre'.
."'
_
wt ""hlho"llaMilfll.
ltl,.,..... who
~. _ _I p1od"l1f" ftll'
coop_nC!mp4 Holhirc Wlaac?"Y ph.
tM ~ J'-' lave htt WlhP '0
further fKtIQ ..llwm and rratmmtlllon 01
the mllltuy. I,n't th. Pre.ldenl
fI'l'rMoran6t,!m f,orn DefenH ~nt.vy
.w.... 0'"
fleleT fWnOi md ARtcblot' ltem.todt VAll
.,alnil UN' lorm.llun 01.au". and [1iI1:
t1o....1nlheartn~dfOt'ces?'WtthC(Jryw....
In.',u:lIOO11I'1D and dM.lon in Ow tnM~
tary, 1M doe.n'1 ~d n~ Ynun. OMcert
...
Union Dr even Qrlngo t1nnaQn-
Th.... empl.o baD M....M....dllu Vera
P~rel ~. Sr ... Fnt. ~4.. u
fnuI*" wire" hIa retvm'ltflG- tlllI! ~I"
Ipplntll 4tollMmltratn ..... upllclly 01
!tOme pHtl'~ I. th~ ,oY+l1Jmc-.t. TM
hold-ordcr nd.yetI by Albbuuldor
!Wun)' P.elae.t: 10..1COIlCUla.wta _)It lIS,
lndudlnf G....... Thr PftI.ldtuUal eom.
mt.IloD on GoodGOl!:m..efj1 ~pat1It,lI)'
drddw lh&1 MarldlU~ whow.. IM411D
c~
Oq ]V "hflldh.. ' ..... orJoYwlleD JIDfoJlb;
~ WIll qulnH, w.",~d w ~ra
to thf! .... 'Uppilltif 10 JHIft lhe: 'or,..y
lmeld..'. ft'hlra. Gee.l, Ihf!y M1! e'VlI'.I
_"uf~I1 exc.n.
Th... pCf.Gw....~dIO!\It ..WUtf
~,. MeceM alie )'CIIMrUy, .... 1,
~ver -dedIIoD they . .Il:e. 0It)'
.ar.d)' "-,,, ~ .... ~
w'"
UwII_ ahowa hJ'
~y people I....
.penuneat. Mmtdl" .. BOt lad.,..,.
c...... elt.'leI'Mfttll'"...l"OllId.... WMld
-'l1'1Ull ameen_UoII of HI' puIPOt1.
PCGG C........~t"t D-vld CMfro wu
bot ~-=tJy IdlDtl ~ tnldl wMa .he
dalDMHll thai MNttlnl and futIDtr .a.
uwlton Mbl"'U GftJ Ce1Id.... """,0 141
u.o 1M .ubJed I)'
111 hold-onkr, left ~
mutr'1 IIAer lDSA. n~ nUl of the
. .her ..,.... Moarlc.h1l1iM Me"~"
I... Itttw"a the US u.d lbe PldUppUe..
:l'ort ,..e:~end~ She-\,..Itedo.",
Man"'l*S IIlI Haw~~ ...,d k 110'1'1' wltJa
...
Imelda I. New York... lb.' DOW a~rt_1
Wh.., ual'elb.. l~s Mrr;.MAl'"erljt-liopllghl
l5. Iht" h;,'1 11101\ '..lIIe.' 01 hN fnllt &Oll~ bll'
bn h05pllallzrd loUowllLJo!a (;lIi .lu'cloenl
I relJl.If'(1 and .dllllre pt'[Jpl~ Hk~ Ma.idlu
.a1}((lhlll haluiJul ofolhoerMArtmr; 10)'aUIII$
whll !l-Iood b)' hlldda .md lIu' 11I1t' Prt!lll-
d~ul during Illtl, homs {II t'rbill aflrllrli\1
Millklm'a only l'rlme!' I. 1I1i1llludt' 10 lin'
MIlJoL:IlSefI. Rut 11 sec-IT) pE'uplt'all/und IIY
d(I/l't Io'IC1W the IIU!,'"III~ 1I11h~ W{'ld
tllmlTllf.,lnnn CUUO SOb)" he Wit' nO'!
aWAle 01 haVhlltaigned any P(:(;U rt'(Olll-
mendatl(ll) to b.,n Mlltldlu lr tllII ((11111111'
home, In dl~ct uruslllR ArllnaMaclc,t
Pt'jaCJ 01 lying _ Ililll(t" f'dbd' "",1l\1l In
our l:OIl,1ul/itn Inlltll USlI('H'("m("llySI.. I~'"
-Upflll ll'1comlnend.thm (II 'CGG. Y<JIl IIU'
leq1.lc.led 10 IrK'lude Ihl;! Illlmp.~ 01 Mill,
(At'KOlloCendwand MJS.Mlllrh') Vr.tn
Prrt>:f. MJU't"d.llllhe hli,lldmd~, It,1 ~ Adll
'llly.lhlllltu(o doe.n', Ollll!' iIlt A .U(IIfIIlC'
10 Ihc1CH!" who AU' UIlI)'tflO Qw;,\r t!lallhto
Alllllnu.dtnlnlfl.U.llollcllIaaYJIi Ilnl! Ihlng. bUI
dUC1!1o allother, ' Il'.nned hur holYI! lIot IluUe lurlt~ltl!n:
1JI\WI. .UOIl ~.4!t AIl,dru.
Ikld. toW IDe Mer (lOftIN:)lelu,n1ay
41N- ~diU'''' .,IIM ItC.haceor fro.
lbet 1'",*'. Kepillloltik of Ot..~ w"o Illlt<
L4!ftllJMf'tIIU.........,wJ t ...penUKi
~.I&,. ud un c:f' beeP, ft.
1-.dI_'1Il1t tMiMOd, .f n.bltn or
P.I'........
CII ~ ....d W 11 N...... 1'11...
.~( ~ .........to'el!i:lIlytu he ..btllllin 01" haplen
u.eron'. k aWaaI 01 dJ. J9Y't1D1IIf:.t.
..,.'1.' '-.?
Emil P. Jurado
-'----.. _._--
FROM THE MAil
Shocking
Shodtlnlll
To many oJ Ll lhelmelda Ill,-qulnnl
W/lill C!XiIIorlly Iusl Hillt: Shuc:kh'tl'-
BUI It "r"(I. U:al fllCht_ We df'.8e'r
1I1iAiitILltUlih aud lru"ltlll!lJll, fur w...
lIU
had IllnllfltlSlJ much 111l1l4! 1111111'
Amll'II~';Ul t:n1ll1 _ 11r,lUI thai nIltltt'l.
In Ill...AIlterlClJlIloY1lein ofIllSllcc,
When the 1)'''Iil!Jn did 11111 dellvP,t lllj~
WiY Wl1' WAnh:,dII. WI! rrle-II foull
When CAn WE' e1o'C't l~llUlllll1w IMny
OlUf.... IIot1Cn ~xcrudllllnll debacle lJl!'ll,le
Wf'rulU~ It) om I~nllt"~? Slgnllll'tltl1ly.
cmelullll In thC' I;'Me eXI)lillne4Ihp.
vl"rdl~'I_lhull: "Wt! arlO IInl bill LUIlUIt!I'
1(1011le.'1 IJ'C'l)llll!.~
Whlrh WIlS It YCOl)" revl!"ltllng "Illte.-o.
1111~Ht - ami wILlrh I:XI,I'llllft ~11
AIJII wltldl r-lslI shmJld Inll1Jj.hulllt'
HIlii'. thl" I1rcoat {,l'1I$lln Wt'1I...'IIl/' IU.!VI!I
TIln( the l'IUI'lltl h.Hlul '(,t (lLlf vllullu,
Unn u 81~uple life IQ ~ IlIu,I(hl hen:
- 1\[11 Cllsr'A'ht.re, 11111.1 IIIre .qrd IIIC~tH
owu l"tere.l. Gild'urhllT4!lln Ihl,
I'HUlltl)', we Fll1lllnu5 UTlIIlI)' ullly
tllX>1I uurJd....e And IMlYIl'I UI.Ollllu'
alilloUlTled ~.nud wlW,o, "itlOd 8e1l61:" 01
IIlhl1'l ,)Cullle. 111.' II We 'Walll h",tll,:to,
II Wf' WAlIt dl!(,ellrYilf Wet wanl "cmuhlCl
",'
HI,he us. Embusy riq Mellon .. n.pI,
do.... abo";l FUlplM ,ttl_tel
Ilnd olblf'l'
Infmbeta '" 'ixIft1cWe,llkmjalnllothe-
US. II tl. I'eUIIhI .~ 'be. FIlipino "8POIIII
lSelelflUOI'II are notortotM fer;.h,.vlllllU1
lno:,dlOllte numb of oUklala., "obIerv-
c!n .nd other ha.,-.-oTI, '" rnnhY 'POI"
Ikolcrg.,.lIoM.lhl'!'nlhhtlt"tt!<l'itnum~ted
bythenon",'h~III','TheUSembll... yhucr
11M! bMn~c;1hn\lt:d" ~ry oftfn: .drna"Y
: athletu .00 ItM!'mbtrl l}f lpotb <delef-.
,lIon.1O 10lheUS ol\ly lttdlUlppHJ andgo
1N'f. 111181)"flPl!'n.ed f'W'n rlurfnl Ih" to.
Anlr.le.. OlympIC'"
'11le US il!llIhusy III tick and ured
Flllpblnt pUlling ene owr lis \If.. tertlcm,
m
"tl~ US emb.Il!J}/ It Itrlcl un Vi Appll.
canl., flllpllU)!J .\I'r l:lt~:~ly III bIA!Tl(". WlJuld
yOIl beueve Ihal flUI 01 tht' h)ll!" mllllnil
Flllrlllllsin the USnuw, about 1I1W.-j(llJllh
'lJt"TNT~~
Inh 'nil' thai Ma.lIlloQlilalliC .. r;onlldr r-
hili!" ('OIJlln~ad. wllh lme-Ida Man:OII hi
ordu 10 l'f.'COver. IlOrtlulll C)( Ul~ Mal'COl
SWlH 1K'Nt'l1..... lIUch_ OCOll:lllwow_l;()llld
.PIIl)' Oldy10 the dvll ....11I nled ..._1011
tbe Man:!~. unt ~ till!' crlml..-l 1:iMt'.
('atIl"'. .phlt'ed _plMI tll.I~' 'Ih~ lrou.ble
II thai II Im~iO;. Hlblb "tae' hM~"
attNblao. Ifb.. '" .-dmltlh~llIIIe II. hl(j
d~1I ,...aJlh - _ thll j ltit! criminal
'IWilJMy. The-penu....I...lth...to PJ'QW!
lW Ul1:1_ft l"~.tl aDd' the JQVIlt (If
traft OOl'Y'Uft'!IbR.
Ilwould. however, be. dl"~ftJlt..ory
" tll.f: A.. uJ.lto,overa.-n, offe ... (OtII-
prom_lh.11WO.Jd frft hllelcJa.lld btl'
dl..llclreaofcrllBlaai '1abI1:lly. The botlom
llllllf'lIe.-..lt.t"'lwkUwrP'reIWl'lItAq"'o
1lkM l' orbo~ lmeld. hold" .. UUIIfl' ~'o
1M recowry of lhor- Sw* monty of Ole
""""-'.
laJld, Wit' ouuelve. hAve ID h1~d r\lI
11 ...11 m"ctl"tIAl'y, 'to DIEFOR m
In nlllt{'lICtlll~ wllh lhl' 11l~"'l1d,d"~~JlII
l-IlIH:elru. of nUl pef)ple, I~t 06 sh'lJ
lookIng Ultto all)' ~blg: luulllIl'" ILlr
&urr.m nr .5llsh:n:mce', Thl!" "!JIg
IJllllhl"l~ wlll (t:rlullll)" help -If Ills In
It;s lnl~tI!5' 10 help_If It I, 1101, we> 5hoJII
_ 31 hollS alwi\l-y, bt'1:f1 oUt cXl'crltlll'1J
III the!pill>l-l)f.! made to l;UIIIIIlIW til
IlOllnder hi fWltlltl:d hope\!!.
Thilt Al11",1l."4njurut WlIS rl~hl. Tilt'
lIS I~ oot -bnd ,tumid fit''''!.'!' bl' n "big
IJllIlht>r" In U~.
BUI. UlllortulIlltely, mltny ul ow
1K:(1)le hll\'~ y~t hI .cUllle h.llollllil wnh
lilill!.cl,
F..Mlun C,-C,M1lll.oNGIlt.
Prolcttaut L.a.w),Nlll.eJlll:ull of 1111'
rllnlppln~
QUNOOCU,.
Senate report?
l1..vt0tl nlllw al'IOU 1110)'
Bn'ulIll'lllluHfltlt rt1JUtlt utOIt' lIuulJt! ul
F(eprei!lcnl~IIYe*, I h011'C! mIl ar.IIAhl,lI
t:tlme Uill wllh thdt own
NORMA RODRIGlil'l
n.c A, I,.uhll
l'rofect4
Q\I"CQIIOI)'
 ,.
.
~ .

Ex-client seeks
.disbarment
of Chavez
BY EVANGELINE DE VERA
Carp', which was inrhe ptOCeS5 'of
a"ciit~g th:ePa'!trllnco'p~operty .
expireci 'aria):~rio;es~!1iialied "t9
A FORMER clienr of lawyer onQuezou'andRooseveltavenues' " d~liver, M.naysougntrJiffibiJrse-:
Frank Chavez has filed a disbar- In Quezon' City," ',j....; : " ,.. ,,-' ment fromher, ~romp.tiiJ.g.him to .
ment case against him and his The propertywas ownedbythe" file an es~.~fa:c~$~ .. :. r , ;':.: J.
associates for conflict Ofinterest. PhilippineNationalBankand'was ,., )Y(imdy sai~ h~ le~rn~a iha,
In a 24-page complaint filed valued-at P505;620;0OO. '..i ,;.'. . Pnor~sc.hi,e.ngagedth~ ;e~ic!'S,of'
before the Integrated Bar of the At the, same time; 'Mandy,: as t , Chal1~" whobecame herlawyer in
Philippines, William Mandyasked head of Mandy Enterprise, was the: criminal case-,~ ,;' .: . ... "
that Chavez be disbarred or sus- sub-leasing from PNB.a portion . . . Dlzonpointed 04~ that the lease
pended from the practice of law . .' -. conet~c;t over.the Nuin.,nciaprop~.
forviolating the Attorney's Oath of"the P.antranco property,.called erty 15- now beY011d' 'salvage as
and the Canons of Professional . "Numancia; property'". by virtue. Mandy hasyetto recover thevaiue .
Responsibility. . ;ofa contract oflease executedon' ()fth~improvement.heintt'odueed '
into the leased property, '1M 'from,
o Mandy's lawyer Joel Dizon, in ..Oct.-1:h1994. : .,' ,.....
the disbarment complaint, said
Chavez is' liable for violating
.. 'The case ensued from rlielaw
.firm's move'tro represent: Siohy
alljndicatiorjf,' Prioreschi hils no
intention of.returnirig the '!show
money" collected from:Mandy,- ",
several canonsof the profession. . Prioreschi in relation.to'the' ESO-
Among them are Canon 15, :':l!llion ~stafa .~Iui,rge ,1odgec;l by' .11'1 pursuing the criminal. case.;
Rule 15.03 saying that a lawyer Mandybefore the Manila regional .Dlzon,said he had.thought of ..
shallhot representconflicting in- trial court.' ... ;', ' ,- ' presenring'Chavez as a Witness" ' ,
terests, ""cept by writteri consent r. 'Mandy Claimed Ptioreschi used , Dleon claimedChavezexerted'
ofallconcerned; Canon I? saying her positionand political connec- efforts to',annul-'tlie' agreement
that a lawyer owes fidelity to the tio,~:'as president of 'PNlilcMan- of,PN~-Madec<ir- andancther-
cause ofhisclient; Canon 19say- iagement and Development <1oq,. company f~t: the acquisition of
ing that a lawyer shall represent . (pNB-MadeciJr) andmember ofthe the Numancia property in 1996 "
hisclientwithzealand. within.the board, of P.NB 'supposedly tohelp and steered'it into "Comprpinise'
, , ,Mandy getarrextension ofhlslease Agreementin.1997. . ,"",
bounds' oi.l~w;'Ca~~n, li,sa~g on the'Numancia.properp; ", .' . . "How can' Mandy enlist, the,
.that a,lawyer shall: preserve, the: '. Mandy saia,tlie"PNB',official support and. fidelity 'ofhis formes-::
confldences atld:secrets.. <ifhis,cliJ ' , ask~d,hlnl,tq.prol1e,.his f\nari.cial laWliet'inpt6secuclhg,sioriy!when '.,
ent even.after.the attorney..client " .capacitY to enter ~nio~a lcng-term he' (Chavez) is now her lawyer1":
relation.is-termlnated; and Ganon . -conrracr tb'atwould cost at-least Dizon. . said. . , I , " .
I .'
~, .
21,Rule21.02saying stating that ,~~2S;655,!m.80'over 17'years '
, a lawyer shall not, to thedisad- "Oy"C!epbsinng "show-money" of
vantageofhis "lielit,-.use- infor'" ,PI0'ni1llion,"". : "',.', -'
mation-acqulred-in rhe course-of. ,Ove'~ tl)..e' ensuing months,
his-employment, nor shall he use, -however; the'P10',million rose
the'sameco his-own advantage pi), to .PSq,09S,OOQ' and' Brtorescni
that of a third person"iinless!tlie:' demaridedmore-monej' as -she-
, client with full knowledge, oftthe warned Macidy, of eviction from
. circumstances consents. (l':~ f theNumaticia property. ..:.,
, ',hsidj".'-fr01l1 'Qhave,z; -also : , " ':'I':herHhe lease eventually
named respondenes iJi.~the suit: ...". . '
were Chavez's law partners, Luis '
Aseoche and Don CarlosYbanez,.
Mandy is a- stockholder of ,
ega'Prime Realtyap:d Holdings:
 ANNEX
ABS-CBN - UMAGANG KAY GANDA (20 May 2010)
Punta Por Punto (segment portion)
Anchored by: Anthony Taberna

The Firm: The Return of the Comeback

Voice-over:

Hindi raw tatanggap ng anumang posisyon sa

gabinete ni Sen. Benigno Aquino III si dating
Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo. Iyan ang pahayag niya
matapos siyang sabihan ni dating Solicitor
General Frank Chavez na at at siyang magkaroon ng
puwesto sa Aquino administration. Inakusahan rin
ni Chavez ng illegal na transaksyon at pang-
iimpluwensya ang Villaraza Cruz Marcelo &
Angangco Law Office 0 binansagang "The Firm" na
kinabibilangan ng dating Ombudsman, tutol din daw
ang The Firm sa pagtatalaga kay Renato Corona
bilang bagong Chief Justice dahil ang dati nilang

o kasamang si Associate Justice Antonio Carpio ang

gusto nilang iupo.

Anthony Taberna ("A. Taberna"):

Kasama po natin dito sa studio for the first time

sa Umagang Kay Ganda si dating Solicitor General
Frank Chavez. Umagang kay ganda po, Atty. Chavez.

Francisco Chavez ("F. Chavez"):

Good morning to you also Tony.

A. Taberna:

o Kamusta po kayo?

F. Chavez:

Mabuti po naman.

A. Taberna:

Poging pogi pa rin.

F. Chavez:

Salamat sa Diyos.

A. Taberna:

Kayo p.o' y naglingkod bilang SolGen nung panahon

ng datlng Pangulong Cory Aquino, tama po ba?

F. Chavez:

Tama po iyan, from March 16, 1987 up to February

6, 1992.

1
 Medyo matagal-tagal din po pala iyan ano? Sa
kabuuan halos ng Aquino administration. Atty.
Frank sa inyo na po nanggaling dahil ito po' y
matagal nang pinag-uusapan, mabuti na lang at
kayo po' y nagsali ta tungkol dito. Ano po ba ang
pagkaka-kilala nyo dito po sa The Firm bilang isa
pong abogadong de kampanilya na nandyan po lagi
sa mga legal community?

F. Chavez:

Well unang-una sa Laha t , dapat kong sabihin na

pareho kami ay kasapi ng Sigma Rho Fraternity.

A. Taberna:

Okay po.

F. Chavez:
o Pero sa amin namang pong fraternity may tinatawag
namang hierarchy of loyalties. Ang number one
namin is God, number two is country, number three
is University, panghuli lang yung fraternity.

A. Taberna:

Opo.

F. Chavez:

But there are 3 kinds of Sigma Rhoans, the good,

the bad and the greedy, so ang pagkakilala ko

o naman sa mga brods kong ito, is that kung saan

yung mayroong opportunity for authority,
power, pumapasok sila, walang problema
for
tayo
diyan.

A. Taberna:

Opo.

F. Chavez:

Pero pag ginamit na yung posisyon na iyan, in a

~anner that can affect the judicial process
l~self, eh dapat naman kaming abogado ay papasok
dln.

A. Taberna:

Opo.

2
 ~~ ..... ~.~- -.-.---... .1.-

just because one law firm is lording it over.

A. Taberna:

Okay. Sa tatlo pong binanggit nyo, good, bad and

greedy, saan po papatak yung The Firm?

F . .Chavez:

Ah kayo nahong mag-conclude dyan.

A. Taberna:

Mahirap po kung ako ang mag co-conclude,

makakausap po natin sa kabilang linya ng telepono
si dating Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo. Attorney?

Simeon Marcelo ("S. Marcelo H ) :

r>
U Ay good morning, kabayan!

A. Taberna:

Opo, Kabayan umagang kay ganda po sa inyo.

Kamusta po kayo, pasensya na po at ginising namin
kayo kahit kayo po ay may insomnia pala.

S. Marcelo:

Kahi t may insomnia dahil nga ... sorry ha hindi ako

nakapunta dyan.

A. Taberna:
() Wala hong problema.

S.Marcelo:

Problema ko iyan eh, pag may court hearing tayo

eh, nire-request nat in sa court na kung pwede eh
alas diyes eh.

A. Taberna:

Opo, opo medyo maaga po ang court hearing natin

dito sa Umagang Kay Ganda.

S. Marcelo:

Hahaha!

A. Taberna:

Sandali lang po, Atty. Frank Chavez, nabanggit po

nin~o y~ng mga history po ng ilang taga-The Firm,
sa llallm ng administrasyong Arroyo, ano ho bang

3
 F. Chavez:

Wala ho tayong problema diyan. Ang tini tingnan

lang nat in eh, for instance, itong brod kong si
Atty. Marcelo, noong sya ay umupo bilang
Ombudsman, sinampahan ko si GMA ng apat (4) na
plunder charges. I'm talking of May 2004, at
hindi nya ginalaw, matagal naka-pending yung mga
kaso diyan, up to now pending pa nga eh.

A. Taberna:

Opo.

F. Chavez:

It has not moved an inch. I don't know if during

that time he was under sedation, pero hindi nya

o ginalaw yung mga kasong yan so after the passage

of about six (6) or eight (8) months, nag-file
ako ngayon ng Motion for Inhibition.

A. Taberna:

Okay.

F. Chavez:

Kay Ombudsman Marcelo at hindi totoo yung

sinasabi ni Omb. Marcelo sa dyaryo na nagpa-
inhibi t sa kanya ay yung mga leftist or
militants, hindi eh, ako ang nagpa-inhibit sa
kanya.

o A. Taberna:

Dahil ?

F. Chavez:

Dahil sa sinasabi ko, dahil hindi nya ginagalaw

ang kaso, to me this is an indication, na ayaw
niyang galawin ang mga ginagawa ni GMA, so nag-
inhibit siya.

A. Taberna:

Opo.

F. Chavez:

Nag-tatanong-tanong ako kung ito bang mga

tinatawag na militants or leftist ay nag-file ng
inhibition, wala akong nakita sa records, and
they are not leftist, they are farmers. Noong
nag-file ako ng plunder charge noong May, the

4
 fi-nile yung farmers.

A. Taberna:

Papaano nyo ho binibigyan ng kahulugan, ano po

ang interpretasyon nyo doon sa mabagal na
pagkilos po niOmbudsman Marcelo, kung yun man po
ang interpretasyon niyo?

F. Chavez:

Well, it appears to me that he was protecting

GMA.

A. Taberna:

Okay, Atty. Marcelo, ano pong espesipikong sagot

niyo po do on sa alegasyon na iyon?

o S. Marcelo:

Noong rna-nominate pa lang ako sa Office of the

Ombudsman, yung leftist talagang in-oppose na
ako, in fact there was a demand that I did
not...even when I was already chosen by the
President, ino-oppose pa rin nila. Dini-demand
nila na I should not accept it, but I accepted
it, so ang nangyari sinasabi nila dahil ang
objection nila, dahil I was formerly the lawyer
of the President and her family, noong pangang
siguro since 1984, kasi hindi ba doon kami bumili
ng opisina, magkasama kami, sila ang may-ari ng
building, sa kanila kami bumili ng units doon, so

o by coincidence lang yun 1982 no, so mga 1984

yata, nag re-refer ng mga kaso sa amin si First
Gentleman, so eventually naging lawyer niya kami
noong Senador pa lang siya, noong tumakbo siyang
Senador abogado na kami ni GMA.

A. Taberna:

Opo.

S. Marcelo:

So i tong mga left, umpisa palang, nano-nominate

pa lang ako hindi pa ako appointed eh ino-oppose
n~ nila ang aking ano.... kaya sa umpisa pa lang,
p Lnariqa ko ko sa kanila na pag may kaso si GMA,
~ag i-inhibit ako. In fact, talagang hindi ko
a naano yung mga kaso kasi nga, dati nga akong
abogado ni GMA.

A. Taberna:

Opo.

5
 So, ewan ko kung saan nakukuha ni Frank yung
kanyang mga sinasabi, pero pag kaso ni GMA talaga
yun ang official position ko noon, nag i-inhibit
ako, dahil talagang dapat naman parang katulad ng
Supreme Court iyan eh, by analogy (inaudible)
dahil kung kliyente mo yung magkakaso sa iyo, eh
hindi na ano, hindi maganda tingnan na ako ang
magdedesisyon.

A. Taberna Okay, Atty. Marcelo, ano po ba ang

magiging papel nyo, pasensya na po medyo maikli
po ang oras natin, ano po ba ang magiging papel
ninyo sa papasok na administrasyong Aquino?

S. Marcelo:

Eh, wala siguro, siguro ako yung magbibigay din

ng unsolicited advice, ganun lang pero ti tingnan

o mo kung pano kami pumasok sa gobyerno no,

sinasabi nya kung sino ang mananalo, alam mo nung
naging abogado kami ni FVR, si FVR was running
number four (4) in the race, okay. So hindi
pwedeng sabihin na nag-aano kami ng opportunity,
one (1) year before tumakbo si FVR was number 4
in the rating, but we thought that he was the
best candidate that's why we supported him, noong
umpisa ang mi tingan sa opisina pa namin, wala
kaming tinatanggap na bayad, . wala totally, wala
kaming tinatanggap na bayad, walang perang
binibigay sa amino

A. Taberna:

o Opo.

S. Marcelo:

Noon ding nakapasok kami kay GMA, eh Senador pa

lang siya abogado nya na kami.

A. Taberna:

Oho.

S. Ma~celo: Diba? So hindi pwedeng ano, ito naman,

.i.t.oriq term na'to, si Nonong Cruz was supporting
Mar, tapos, nag-s,lide down siya, kinuha rin siya
as an advlser, na Noynoy. So hindi iyan yung, 0
eto panalo na to tapos d.i t o tayo sasama, walang
ga~un eh, si Nonong Cruz na kay Mar, tapos nag-
sh~e down sya kinuha pa rin sya ni Noynoy as an
advlser, so hindi ito yung sinasabi niya na 0 ito
yung opportunity, eh kung opportunity dapat yung
number one (1) sa rating ang sasamahan mo palagi.

6
 S. Marcelo:

Diba? Para siguradong panalo, pero kami puro

pailalim yung laging umpisa namin yung kay FVR
sabi ko nga number four (4) si FVR, yung kay GMA
senador pa lang sya.

A. Taberna:

Opo. Sandali lang po Atty. Simeon.... Kabayan

sandali lang po ha, para po makapagsagutan tayo.
Saan nyo ba nakuha Atty. Frank yung bali ta na
gusto niyang maging JBC member?

F. Chavez:

Ang sinasabi ni Atty. Marcelo na misinformed ako,

eh medyo nakaka-insulto yun, na parang ano ako?
o Gullible? Na anybody can just tell me something
then I will believe it? Kaya ko sinasabi yan, I
came out openly, because the very same persons
that he called, told me na tinawagan sila ni
Atty. Marcelo, so anong sinasabi niyang
misinformation? Yun ang hindi ko matatanggap eh,
na bakit gayung mayroong mga abogado na parang
nagdidikta 0 nangangampanya kung sino iluluklok
natin sa ating Judiciary, yun ang hindi maganda.

A. Taberna:

At iyan po ba ang ginagawa ng The Firm?

o F. Chavez:

Hindi ba? I mean, show me during the time and

even up to now, sino ang may control ng
Prosecutor's Office sa Makati? Tao nila! Sino
during that time ang Presidential Legal Counsel?
Si Nonong Cruz. Sino ngayon, during that time ang
Solicitor General? Si Atty. Marcelo, and later he
became Ombudsman. Sino at that time sumasalo ng
mga kaso sa Supreme Court? Si Antonio Carpio. So
ano ang nangyayari ngayon, na co-corner ang
market no, and that is not good for law practice.

A. Taberna:

Opo, okay, Atty. Marcelo, ano po ang sagot nyo

ron? May mga tinawagan kayo na, pano hong dating
Atty.....

F. Chavez:

One typical example.

7
 F. Chavez:

Tatawagan niya ang tao at sabihin, 0 acceptable

na ba sa inyo kung si Denis Villaignacio ay
magiging Ombudsman? Ano yung LbLq sabihin noon,
that they have the power to put in people of
their choice? Ano itong nangyayari sa gobyerno
natin eh hindi pa nga pumapasok ang government ni
President Noynoy Aquino, ito na ang nangyayari,
jockeying for position? If you're looking forward
to change in our country, we should avoid
situations and deals like these because this is a
government that promises to run a government on a
platform of zero tolerance for corruption.

A. Taberna:

Opo. Atty. Marcelo, go ahead please.

o S. Marcelo:

it speaks for himself eh, sino pa yung mga

hinabla ko noon, hinabla ko yang Diosdado
Macapagal, puro mga kaibigan yan ng, ni First
Gentleman, diba yung karamihan dun, yang Piatco
0, sino kailan ba na-file yung cases diyan? Nung
time ko. Si Major Gen. Garcia, sino ba ang
lumaban sa corruption sa military yan eh
untouchable dati yan oh. My record speaks for
itself, yun lang ang ti tingnan nila, si Justice
Carpio kahit pa ano sabihin lahat ng kaso namin
nagi-inhibit si Justice Carpio, kaya nga sabi

o namin mayroon nga tayong nanggaling sa opisina na

Justice, wala namang pakinabang, eh kasi laging
nagi-inhibit iyan, tapos makikita niyo yung mga
posisyon niyan laging against kay GMA.

A. Taberna:

Opo, bibigyan ko po kayo ng pagkakataong, Atty.

Marcelo bibigyan ko po kayo ng pagkakataong...

S. Marcelo:

....... Nung si Nonong, lahat kami katulad ko ayokong

mag-SolGen.

F. Chavez;

Hindi.

8
 kaya lang ako nag-Ombudsman dahil kinausap ako nl
GMA, sabi ni GMA sa akin "a lot of these lawyers
are dying to get this position, ikaw pahele-hele
ka pan sabi nya sa akin, kaya medyo, sige na nga
sabi ko tatanggapin ko na.

A. Taberna:

Atty. Marcelo sandali lang po.

S. Marcelo:

Katulad ni Nonong Cruz sa DND dalawang beses nya

tinanggihan iyan, noong pangatlong beses
na.... pinuntahan siya sa bahay ni GMA.

F. Chavez:

Teka muna ako naman.

()
A. Taberna:

Atty. Marcelo sandali lang po , babalikan ko po

kayo.

S. Marcelo:

Eh di, tinanggap nya na yung posisyon.

A. Taberna:

Sandali lang po sir.

o S. Marcelo:

Si Carpio ayaw din ni Carpio mag-Supreme Court

sabi nya masyado daw akong batao

A. Taberna:

Opo.

S. Marcelo:

lIang beses syang kinausap ni GMA bago nya

tinanggap yon.

A. Taberna:

~aku, sorry po Sir, medyo mahaba....

S. Marcelo:

Ka t u I a d ko , wala akong kinakausap .....

9
 S. Marcelo:

hindi ko tatanggapin kahit na i-offer sakin

ang JBC.

A. Taberna:

Sandali lang po Atty. Simeon, kabayan!

S. Marcelo:

So hindi ko alam kung saan nanggagaling yang

kay Frank, ano ang motibo nya, pero isa lang ang
masasabi ko, hindi ko ... yung sinasabi nya, at
sabihin nya sino ba yung mga tao na kinausap ko
sige pag-anuhin nya ng maihabla ng perjury.

F. Chavez:
o Isa ang masasabi ko sa inyo, kinausap nyo si
Special Prosecutor Wendell Sulit, idi-deny mo
yun? Idi-deny mo ba yun? In open television, are
you going to deny that?

S. Marcelo:

Hindi ko, kinausap s i, Wendell, I talked to

Wendell what's going to happen about the
Ombudsman...the big cases because I was asked, but
I never told him that I wanted to be in the
Judicial Bar Council. I never told him that I
want to be in the Judicial Bar Council. Hindi ko

o sinabi sa kanya na I want to be a Judicial Bar

Council, 0 ano ngayon...

F. Chavez:

Then it must have been somebody who sounded like

you and talked like you, you should have moral
courage to accept it. Hay nako! Atty. Marcelo,
you are telling a lie in national television, you
talked to Prosecutor Sulit, do not deny that...

A. Taberna:

Sandali lang po, Gentlemen, sandali lang po,

relax lang po tayo para po magkaintindihan baka
po .......

F. Chavez:

Can I just point out....

10
 Gentlemen

S. Marcelo:

Ang hirap. kasi sa' yo Frank, wala ka na kasi sa

limelight, sige okay lang, magpasikat ka kung
gusto mo, ang hirap ginagamit mo pa ko eh...

F. Chavez:

Ako hindi ako nagpapasikat.

S. Marcelo:

Wala naman akong intensyon diyan. MasyadO ka

kasing ano eh....

A. Taberna:

Sandali lang po. Sir!

F. Chavez:

Sikat na ako, bakit pa ako magpapasikat?

S. Marcelo:

Sa ngayon, dahil wala kang pinanalong kaso sa

akin noong magkalaban tayo hanggang ngayon siguro
masaki t pa ang loob mo sa akin hanggang ngayon.
Wag na 'yan, kalimutan mo na yang personalan,
yung country ang ating pag-usapan.

A. Taberna:

Sandali lang, sandali lang po, bibigyan ko po

kayo ng tig-30 seconds para po maka-parting shots
niyo. Unahin ko na po kayo Atty. Marcelo, go
ahead please, you have thirty (30) seconds.

S. Marcelo:

Eh siguro hanggang ngayon masama pa ang loob ni

Frank noong magkalaban kasi, apat na beses kaming
magkalaban, puro talo siya eh, kaya siguro
hanggang ngayon masakit pa rin ang loob niya sa
akin, kaya hanggang ngayon binabanatan ako. Pero
katulad niyan kinausap ko si Wendell, but we
never talked about the JBC, we never talked about
JBC, sino pa? Sino pa sabihin niya pa kung sino
ang kinausap ko , And tanungin nila si Mar Roxas
from the very beginning I was rooting for Bobby
Tanada to become the Ombudsman when the time the
opportunity comes, noon pa yan, kinausap ko si
Bobby 'I'ariada pa, tanungin nila si Bobby 'I'ariada
~inausap ko.

11
 Atty. Marcelo maraming salamat po, pasensya na po
at gahol na gahol lang tayo sa oras, sa uulitin
po, I want you to go here para po magkaintindihan
tayo nang mas mahaba-haba. Thank you, Sir! Okay,
Atty. Frank.

F. Chavez:

Ako naman?

A. Taberna:

Go ahead po.

F. Chavez:

Sinasabi nya apat na beses niya akong tinalo,

wala siyang nabanggit na kahi t anong kaso. Siya
anim na beses kong tinalo so ano ngayon, ano ang
lamang, apat 0 anim? Ang problema nito sa mga
taong ito is during the time when they were in
government they told the public that they have
cut clean from their law offices, but they did
not, after their stint in government, they went
back to their law office. When I entered
government, ang nangyayari, I cut completely from
Sycip Salazar, and after I left government, hindi
na ako bumalik sa law office na iyon,
nagpapatunay na complete ang aking disengagement
sa aking law office. Pero sila, ano ang ginagawa
nila, they forage outside at tapos babalik sila
sa law office nila, madagdag ko lang.

c -\ A. Taberna:
\_)
Sige po.

F. Chavez:

Ang sinasabi nag-file siya ng kaso sa mga Piatco

people, lahat ng kinasuhan niya sa Piatco,
dismissed. Wala ni isang kaso na nag-prosper,
dismissed lahat. Tapos ang sinasabi niya pa na
kwan siya, na nakipag-usap siya kay Wendell Sulit
Prosecutor na hindi daw nila pinag-usapan yung
JBC, hindi niya dini-deny on national television
na sinasabi niya kay Wendell Sulit na pinu-push
niya itong siDennis Villaignacio.

A. Taberna:

As Ombudsman, Sir! Pasensya na po mayroon naman

tayong continuation sa Dos Por Dos. Thank you
very much for coming here.

12
 A. Taberna:

Salamat po sa inyo.

F. Chavez:

Anytime, Atty. Marcelo wherever you want.

A. Taberna:

Thank you, thank you very much. Hay naku! Mga

kapamilya pasensya na po kayo ha, at masarap
talagang makipag-usap sa mga abogadong de
batingaw, hindi lamang po de kampanilya. Alam po
ninyo sa nobelang nilikha ng paborito kong
manunulat na Amerikano na si Attorney, former
Congressman John Grisham, na isina-pelikula po ni
Tom Cruise, inilarawan po ang The Firm bilang
() isang law office na hanep ang kapangyarihan at
impluwensyang tangan maging sa pamahalaan. Sa
madaling salita po ayon sa kwento na iyon, sila
po'y kontrabida, kaya po naman hanggang ngayon ay
hindi ko po maunawaan kung bakit tila po
pinangangatawanan, well, with all due respect sa
aking kababayan na si Atty. Marcelo at ni Sec.
Nonong Cruz, ang bansag 0 taguring "The Firm",
maliban na lang po kung sila po ay nangangatawan
na rin dun po sa tawag na sila po' y kontrabida.
Bukod po sa kwento kanina ni Atty. Frank Chavez,
isa pong open secret sa legal community kung
paano po humahataw ang The Firm mula po piskalya
hanggang sa husgado, at kung ito po ang inyong
o kalaban maghanap ka na ng iyong tatakbuhan, ito
po marahil ang dahilan kung bakit karamihan sa
mga mahistrado ng Korte Suprema ay pumayag
italaga ni Pangulong Arroyo si Chief Justice
Renato Corona kahit medyo alanganin sa
Konstitusyon. Ayon po sa aking mga, Oeo pahiram
lang ha , ayon sa aking mga bubwit sa Supreme
Court, eh ayaw po nila na maging ama ng
hudikatura ang dating bossing ng The Firm. Kung
nais po ng The Firm na alisin ang ating pangamba,
mabuti nga pong siguro' y huwag silang tumanggap
ng anumang pwesto sa administrasyong Aquino, sawa
na po kami sa tila sindikato sa panahon ni
Pangulong Arroyo na ang mga transaksyon ay
ikinamada ng mukhang mga Santo't Santa pero sa
totoo pala ay Mafia.

[The Godfa ther theme playing in background]

Magbabalik po ang The Godfather, Umagang Kay

Ganda!

- E N 0 -

13