Gordon: Pay for debates to end premature campaign

SENATOR Richard J. Gordon (Ind.) yesterday reiterated his proposal calling on the government to sponsor televised debates fore presidential hopefuls to prevent politicians’ form prematurely spending for political ads.

Gordon said that many politicians who are planning to run for national posts in the May 2010 Elections are already gearing up through political ads disguised as infomercials.

“We have politicians spending P300 to 400 million for TV ads alone that are already clogging the airtimes though the campaign period has yet to start. We also have appointed officials suddenly coming out with infomercials,” he said.

The senator noted that the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) prescribes a 90-day campaign period before Election Day for national candidates. However, months before the filing of certificates of candidacy, political ads have already filled the tri-media.

Although the OEC defines “candidate” as a person seeking an elective public office who has filed a certificate of candidacy; Gordon said it would be an insult for the people to make them believe that infomercials of politicians are not part of their campaign strategy.

“These people are insulting our citizens. Do they really expect us to believe that their expenditures which amount to hundreds of millions just for TV is not campaigning?” he said.

--Tonight

Gordon wants to amend AMLA

By: Marlon Purificacion - Journal online
SENATOR Richard Gordon yesterday said he wants to amend a provision in the 2001 Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) to allow not more than two years extension on freeze order against the accounts and properties suspected to have been illegally acquired by any public official or employee.

Gordon, chairman of the Senate blue ribbon committee, is set to file a bill that specifically seeks to amend Section 10 of Republic Act 9160 as amended by RA 9194, otherwise known as the AMLA.

“We are introducing a measure to amend the anti-money laundering law, specifically on the section that provides for the implementing rules and regulations on freezing monetary instrument or property,” he said.

“Once the alleged offenders take hold of the accounts or property suspected to be related to money laundering, then the nation is immediately deprived of the possibility to recover unlawfully acquired assets and is prejudiced by the loss of property,” he added.

Under the current AMLA, the Court of Appeals (CA), upon request of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), may issue a freeze order on monetary instrument or property related to an unlawful activity for a period of 20 days and may be extended for a period not exceeding six months.

Under Gordon’s proposal, the CA may grant an extension of the freeze order every six months but, in no case, shall the total extension accumulate to more than two years.

“When the AMLC, the Ombudsman or the Solicitor General fails to file a forfeiture case and move for preliminary attachment, the freeze order may eventually lapse, giving the owners of the accounts free hand to dispose of the money or property as they wish,” Gordon said.

The AMLC, however, has to prove before the court that a “compelling reason” exists for the allowance of the extension.

Also, AMLC will have to justify why there is a failure on the part of the government to file for a preliminary attachment or forfeiture on any property found to have been unlawfully acquired by any public official or employee, thereby a need to further extend the freeze order period.

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW

SEN DICK GORDON
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW



ON LEO SAN MIGUEL "LYING" AT ZTE HEARING

SEN. GORDON: There are lessons to be learned. Dapat bago tayo
tumanggap ng testigo, katulad ng pino-propose ko, ay dapat magkaroon
sila ng sworn statement o kaya ma-depose yung witnesses. At ang
matagal ko nang sinasabi ay kailangang maibigay sa aming mga Senador
yung mga affidavit ng mga testigong iyan para sa ganoon within one
week mababasa namin at mapag-aralan para kapag humarap sila sa amin ay
maganda ang tanungan at hindi yung paulit-ulit. Malalim ang tanungan
at hindi yung lumalayag.

Kahit sino ang dalhin dyan ay wala kaming alam. Kung ano ang
background, nagsu-surprise witness kami. Yung surprise witness dapat
under extreme circumstances lang iyan. Sapagkat hindi dapat basta
pinapapasok dahil ang nangyayari ay nawi-waste ang time ng senado.

Yung mga affivadit –that is in the interest of fair play. It protects
the witness, it protects the prosecution para sa ganoon ay malinaw
kung ano ang sasabihin at makikita ang theory ng mga lumalabas na
nag-aatake, lumalabas na nagbubunyag at yung mga dumi-depensa ay
makikita. Hindi lamang po iyan para sa mga testigo laban sa gobyerno
kundi para din doon sa mga humaharap, katulad ng mga cabinet members,
pwede silang gumawa ng mga statement nila para malaman ang buong
istorya. Hindi nagbabago ang istorya o humahaba ang istorya as we go
along. Ito ay para sa mabilis, malinaw, masinop at logical na
imbestigasyon.



Q: Ginapang daw po ng Malacanang si San Miguel para magdalawang-isip?

SEN.GORDON: Hindi naman ako taga-Malacanang kaya tanungin nyo na
lang ang mga taga-Malacanang. That was the first time I saw Mr. San
Miguel. In fact, if we have been given yung kanyang affivadit dapat
seguro natanong siya ng mas maayos. Mas madali kase kung may affidavit
ka.


Q: Ang haba-habang na nang imbestigasyon ito?

Sen GORDON: Kaya humaba dahil nga wala yung rules na dapat
naka-affivadit bago dumating yung witness. Tingnnan ninyo sa America,
bago mag-imbestiga, kukunin muna ang deposition ng lahat ng testigo at
kapag nakuha na yung affivadit ng testigo, nabibigyan ng one hour
yung administration at one hour yung minority para sa pagtatanong. At
dahil hawak na nila ito one week before, napag-aaralan lahat yung
kanilang statement. Samakatuwid, hindi naglulubid ng buhangin,
nagsisinungaling o gumagawa ng istorya.


Q: Sir, sa tingin nyo ba nagsasabi ng totoo si San Miguel?

Sen. Gordon: I can not kase unang-una nang dini-deny niya. Ang sabi
nga ni Sen. Lacson, siya ang magiging surprise witness at mako-
corroborate niya lahat yung mga testigo pero bigla niyang sinabing
HINDI. So ano ang panghahaweakan namin? Pero kung meron siyang sworn
statement na kinuha na kaagad sana ni Sen. Lacson eh di may hawak na
siya kaagad. Hindi na siya( San Miguel) makakatakbo doon. Hindi na
siya makapagsisinungalin. At kung may sworn statement doon – "affiant
sayeth naught" wala na akong idadagdag sa statement ko, nasabi ko
nalahat. Hindi na pwedeng magdagdag ng anumang kalokohan yung mga
testigo. Kaya napakaahalaga ng sworn statement. Yan ang pino-propose
ko palagi.


Q: Pero agree ba kayo sa mga obserbasyon kahit nagulat yung mga
senador napatunayan parin that Abalos was all over the place?

Sen. Gordon: That is correct. August pa lang gusto ko nang i-file yung
kaso kay Abalos. Noong inimbestiga natin ito last year, sinabi ko na
sa kanya na nandito ka palagi. Hindi mo(Abalos) trabaho iyan. Kaya nga
sinabi ko na barko ng mga hudas ito. Bakit kamo, hindi dapat makialam
si Abalos na pupunta siya sa China tuwing may meeting ang ZTE doon.
Hindi niya teritoryo yung broadband, ang teritoryo niya ay Comelec. At
ang election na matino ay hindi niya inaaatupag. At pagkatapos ito
namang si Joey De Venecia, hindi siya dapat nakikialam dyan. Anak siya
ng speaker. Biruin mo kapipirma pa lang memorandum of understanding
meron na agad siyang unsolicited bid. Ni walang amount, walang terms
of reference kung magkano ang amount na ibibigay kaya ang hirap
tanungin. Ano ba talaga,130 M ba o 320M ba? Hindi malaman. Yun nga ang
tinatanong ko kahapon kina Sales – "Wala ba kayong papel na
nagpapakita na meron kayong agency estimate kung magkano iyan para
malaman kung nag-overprice o nag underprice o yung tinatawag nilang
tong-pats."



Q: Sir, ano po ang epekto nito doon sa credibility ng senado
considering na parang sumabog yun witness kahapon?

Sen. Gordon: It only tells us that we must be careful. Kaya noong
isang araw nga ay nag-file ako ng resolution na kailangang i-depose
yung witness. Ibig sabihin noon, bago dumating ang isang testigo dapat
may written statement, under oath at ibibigay sa amin ang mga
statement na iyan one week before the investigation. Makikita ninyo
bibilis yan. In two or three days tapos kaagad ang imbestigasyon na
iyan.


Q: Sir, pwede bang ma-contempt…?

Sen. Gordon: Sino?


Q: Yun witness kahapon?

Sen. Gordon: You can not cite him for contempt if he says "Hindi ko
alam kung ano ang nangyari." You cannot even cite him for contempt if
he says "I have no knowledge" unless you can prove that he was lying.
Pero kung kinuha ni Sen. Lacson yung kanyang(San Miguel) affivadit,
hindi siya makapagsisinungaling.


ON LIE DETECTOR TEST


Q: Sir, yung lie detector..importante ba yun?

Sen. Gordon: Well hindi naman admissible as evidence iyan. Walang
probative value ito.


Q: So, may need for that?

Sen. Gordon: No. I don't think so. Makikita naman kase hindi naman
admissible as evidence iyan saka kung ayaw ng testigo hindi mo
mapipilit.


Q: Sir, pumayag sila.

Sen. Gordon: Kung papayag sila, di pakuha sila ng lie detector test
pero it can not be used on a court of law.


Q: What is it, waste of time?

Sen. Gordon: No it's not a waste of time. It is an indication kung
gusto nila at kung pumasa sila eh di hindi sila nagsisinungaling. It
is only an indication but can not be used sa prosecution sa Ombudsman.


Q: Sir, ano ang reaksyon ninyo sa sinabi ng Palasyo na bumaba ang
rating ng tele-novela ng senado dahil sumablay ito sa testigo?

Sen. Gordon: Mangyayari't mangyayari iyan. Kaya nga to protect the
Senate and to protect the truth and justice kailangan may prepared
statement ang witnesses. Without that, truth and justice is in peril.
Delikado.


ON WIRE TAPPING

Q: Sir, pabor ba kayo sa paglalabas ng mga phone conversation na wire
tap..?

Sen. Gordon: No. That is against the law. Any wiretap should not be
encouraged. Wire tapping is against the law. Can you imagine kung
wina-wire tap tayo, lahat dito ay pwedeng ilabas? Kaya nga iyan ang
wisdom ng batas na yan. Hindi pwedeng ilabas yung wiretap. Kaya itong
mga ito, pwede silang parusahan d'yan.


Q: Yun playing?

Sen. Gordon: Kapag ginawa iyan lalabas ako.


Q: Pero si Sen Enrile plan to…?

Sen. Gordon: Si Sen. Enrile and Sen. Lacson, ilalabas nila?
Napaka-delikado niyan. Under the law they can be hauled to court.


Q: Sir, yun nag-wire tap ba ang…?

Sen. Gordon: The wire tapping at saka yung nagpi-present ng tape na
wiretap illegally obtained.


Q: Si Lozada sir, medyo kinumpirma niya na maaring may ganoon nga
siyang conversation, pwede ba yun?

Sen. Gordon: Maaaring may ganoon pero walang permiso siya na
i-wiretap. Hindi pwedeng gamitin sa kanya iyan.


Q: Sir, paki-ulit lang yung inyong rejection of airing ng mga wire tap
materials.

Sen. Gordon: Masamang precedent iyan kapag papayagan natin ang mga
awtoridad o sinumang tao na iwa-wire tap kahit senador pa, kahit na
siya ay presidente o general. Hindi siya dapat mag-wire tap nang
walang pahintulot ang korte. Kapag pinayagan natin iyan na pwedeng
gumawa ng wire-tapping sa bawat tao, para na tayong nasa panahon ni
Hitler na hihilahin ka na lang.


Q: Pero sir, kung titingnan yung korte suprema diba nagpalabas sila
ng desisyon, ina-allow na nila yung airing ng garci tape?

Sen. Gordon: Dahil nagging public knowledge na talaga iyan.


Q: So dapat I-air muna para maging public knowledge?

Sen. Gordon: Hindi naman. Hindi ko masyadong nakita yung desisyon ng
Korte Suprema pero sa tingin ko masyado nang naging public ang
nangyari. Pero remember, dumaan muna sa Korte Suprema para payagang
i-air. Hindi pwedeng payagan mo basta-basta nang walang pahintulot ng
husgado.


Q: Pero sir, hindi ho ba lumalabas na very prevalent na kahit sino na
lang…?

Sen. Gordon: Kaya nga dapat parusahan. Kaya nga sinasabi ko, Sen.
Enrile and Sen. Lacson would be liable for suits if they present
illegally wire tapped conversations. Saka it is very bad for our
country to have that. Kakabahan na ang lahat na gumamit ng telepono.
Tingnan ninyo yung nangyari sa Governor of New York (Eliot Spitzer),
may wiretap iyan pero may court order kay napilitan siyang mag-resign.


Q: Who's going to file suit against these two?

Sen. Gordon: Any of the people involved. And that is a crime so people
of the Philippines iyan.


Q: Sir, will you file?

Sen. Gordon: Well, we will see how it goes. I think we should file a
case against anybody who presents illegally wiretapped testimonies.
Iyan ang batas. I will object to it. I already objected before, di ba
sa Garci. Hindi tama yan kahit ano pa ang pagkakamali, kaya may batas
iyun ang nagpo-proteksyon sa tao.


Q: Sir, kung wala ka namang tinatago bakit ka matatakot na i-air nila
yun?

Sen. Gordon: Because it sets a precedent. Kung pumapayag ka, walang
problema iyun. Payag lahat sila, payag si Lozada, payag si President
Arroyo, payag silang ilabas nila iyan - Fine. But still hindi
pinapayagan na iyan nag-wiretap ay libre na i-air o gumawa siya ng
wire tapping. It is still illegal.

Senate OKs on third reading bill decriminalizing vagrancy

The Senate has approved on third and final reading the bill decriminalizing vagrancy.

Senate Bill 1965, submitted jointly by the committees on justice and human rights, and constitutional amendments, revision of codes and laws was approved by the body for transmittal to the House of Representatives for consideration.

Vagrants are people who stay out on the streets at night. The existing anti-vagrancy law contained in Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code usually causes the arrests of prostituted women, street children, and homeless people.

The bill removes vagrants in the law, but prostitution remains a crime.

Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero, chairman of the justice committee and author of the bill, together with Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Richard Gordon, and Loren Legarda, said that the existing law on vagrancy failed to see that vagrants were victims of poverty, who don't have the opportunities for employment or access to decent standards of living and quality of life.

"Vagrancy inflicts no harm to society, but if at all, very minimal compared to those grave offenses which cause damage to person, community, and property. This should be addressed with treatment rather than with punishment," Escudero said Wednesday.

The bill, he said, provides equal protection to women, children and men as authorities cannot anymore recklessly and conveniently use vagrancy in arbitrary arrests.

"We see it all the time in the news, when authorities round up people and no definite charges can be made, vagrancy comes in handy. Cases of this nature have already piled up in our justice system,” he said.

Escudero said that with SB 1965, two issues were addressed: A more humane justice system, which prioritizes the rehabilitation of the offender and acknowledges the value of every human life; and the decongestion of the load of the justice system.

By decriminalizing vagrancy, Escudero said law enforcement officers could pay more attention to graver offenses and improve the administration of justice in the country.

The neophyte senator said the Senate was optimistic that their counterparts in the House would approve the same bill once transmitted there. By Veronica Uy - INQUIRER.net

Ebdane faces rough confirmation

Commission of appointments report shows DPWH chief has murder, graft cases

The committee on public works of the Commission on Appointments deferred on Wednesday the confirmation of Public Works Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane to give him time to answer derogatory records in his service, including charges of murder and graft, among others.

Rep. Conrado Estrella 3rd of Pangasinan, the committee chairman, said his committee would conduct another hearing on February 13 so Ebdane could prepare his defense.

The investigation conducted by the committee showed that retired police Gen. Eduardo Matillano had accused Ebdane of demanding 20 to 25 percent in commission for contracts awarded during the latter’s stint as chief of the Philippine National Police.

Ebdane swore on the grave of his father that he had never demanded any centavo, much less 25 percent, for the awarding of PNP contracts. Matillano was chief of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group under Ebdane.

Ebdane claimed that Matillano was only getting back at him for his getting relieved as CIDG head.

The appointments commission’s investigation report also mentioned the claim of one Rebecca Lopez that Ebdane was responsible for the murder of her husband. Ebdane, however, said Lopez had already withdrawn the case and gave Estrella a copy of her affidavit of desistance. Estrella said that his committee’s efforts to locate Lopez at her last known address proved futile.

Ebdane also has cases of murder, kidnapping, plunder, arbitrary detention, perjury, grave misconduct, graft and violation of the Solid Waste Management Law pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Road Users Tax Association also opposed Ebdane’s confirmation for the alleged misuse of the road users’ tax. Sen. Richard Gordon said that Ebdane’s role in the disbursement of the road users tax was not explicit. He said Ebdane might not have a hand on how to use the tax. The opposition had claimed that the tax was used in the previous elections and demanded an accounting.

Gordon said he would seek more details from Ebdane about the Lopez and Ombudsman cases at the next confirmation hearing
By Efren L. Danao - Manila Times Senior Reporter