Marcoleta PINRANGKA si Fadullon: “Hindi tayo magkakasundo kahit kailan!”

We are simply citing the law and we are constrained by the law because as I said there are penal sanctions. >> So if the law does not provide any distinction bakit nga kailangan ka pang mag-confer sa ano? Bakit kailangan ka pang puntahan? Ikaw na nagsasabi ng walang distinction e ba. So kung nandito siya let him speak na hindi na dapat pupunta pati yung counsel niya yun lang mali na e.

 Meron siyang sariling counsel pagkatapos pupunta pa siya sayo. It is an insult to the situation personal council. Kaya magulo talaga eh. [musika] So chair, clarification lang. I notice Mr. Chair when uh Yosek Bernardo tried to confer with his council, the council approached him and then before anything else he also went to uh PG Padulon. Why is that Mr.

 Ch? Ah kasi he’s already admitted sa WPP and d sa kanilang existing na rules under their rules. Kailangan bago sumagot baka makaapekto sa kanyang pagkaadmit. Kailangan talaga may clearance sa DOJ. Medyo >> Thank you. Medyo medyo magulo yun Mr. Chair kasi medyo magulo nga rin pero yun ang kanilang ag kinakailangan niyo siyang padalan dito pagkatapos eh mare-restrict din pala.

 This is an open investigation. Sana walang gann na kasi nangyari na sa amin ‘yun when the former DOJ was here. Habang nag ah uusap-usap kami rito, habang nagtatanong-tanong kami, kukunin niya yung isang ah witness namin o isang resource person dadalhin sa NBI. Pagdating sa NBI meron ng ah supplemental affidabit.

 Naguguluhan kami sa ganong pangyayari eh. This is supposed to be an independent committee under the legislature. The DOJ is an executive department. Uh I’m not questioning this no but parang magulo lang sa amin. So kaya ko lang nai-point out Mr. Chest sa DOJ. under the WPP loba ba itong yung yung ganyan confidentiality? Yes, you’re Yes.

Mr. Chair, the matter that pertains yung confidentiality of the proceedings as well as the uh the manner by which the witness was evaluated and how he was covered is confidential. That’s the reason why it is being invoked by the witness Mr. Chair because like I said earlier it is not because we want to restrict his testimony but there is a law the law itself provides that yes and it provides for penal sanctions.

 So to answer the question of the or the concern of secretary or senator Marcoleta kailangan iyung law pala no? >> That that may be one of the that may be one of the suggestions uh if uh since the committee is investigating this in aid of legislation if that is considered a restriction in investigations like this then maybe the law will have to be amended first.

>> In the meantime constraint kayo ng batas? >> Yes Mr. Chair we are constrained by law. Thank you, PG. Mr. Chair, kasi yung interpretation niya ang palaging mali eh. Yung yung confidentiality diyan na pinag-uusapan sa inyo lang yun sa witness protection ninyo diyan. Pero pagdating dito, it does not apply.

 Ikaw lang ang nagi-interpret kasi kaya kanina pa tayo nagtatalo eh. May I respond, Mr. Chair, with all the respect to Senator Marcoleta saying that our interpretation is always wrong, the law itself provides for it section 7. Uh, and we are not raising this, like I said, simply because we want to constrict the investigation.

 The law does not make a distinction whether the investigation is going to be done elsewhere or in the Senate or before the house of representatives. So we are simply citing the law and we are constrained by the law because as I said there is are penal sanctions. So if the law does not provide any distinction, bakit nga kailangan ka pang mag-confer sa ano? Bakit kailangan ka pang puntahan? Ikaw na nagsasabi ng walang distinction eh ‘di ba? So kung nandito siya let him speak na hindi na dapat pupunta pati yung counsel niya e. Yun lang e malina

Meron siyang sariling counsel pagkatapos pupunta pa siya sayo e. It is an insult to this situ to his own personal counsel. Kaya magulo talaga eh. O eh gusto kong itanong halimbawa kay Yosek Bernardo, in-apply niyo na pala siya sa WP, ni-require niyo siya ng restitution ‘ ba sasabihin mo na that’s confidential ka mo na naman. No Mr.

Chair, I’m not going to say it’s confidential. >> Earlier you were talking about confidentiality. You remember the last time >> Yes. Yes, I did I did mention that Mr. Chair. I talked about confidentiality >> but with respect to the restitution I think that’s a matter of public record already because that was al already stated by Mr.

 Bernardo and he was allowed by the Secretary of Justice. >> Yes. Earlier you are not forthright in answering that. Nung tinatanong ko ang una mong sinabi that’s confidential. Now nagsasabi ka it is not confidential. So paiba-iba ka ng posisyon eh. Talaga e. Mr. >> Mr. Chair if >> I’m not asking any questions anymore. >> No, I’m just racing the question to the chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ch.

>> You cannot do that. Thank you. Are we done? So, >> sige, let’s move on. Ah kung walang members na gustong magtanong doun sa ating dalawang bagong witnesses, no, in relation to the Disaya Ay, yeah, Discaya, Romalde issue, then we excuse them already. Mr. Chair, ah gusto ko sanang magtanong lang sana kung papayag ka.

 Of course, ah yung tungkol doun sa Tamarid House sa South Forbes yung binabanggit mo kanina ‘di ba? And then you were asking for some parang leeway in terms of a few days paracate ninyo because the uh you were you are yet you are not yet ready uh with all the things that you need to move out ‘ ba? Sino yung may-ari ba talaga nung ah bahay na yon? Your honor? Ah hindi po kami aware kung sino po iyung owner mismo but we are >> I will answer that. Ang may-ari po dati.

Doris Magsaysay ho and uh you were there as what? >> Ah stop ng tenant. May tenant kasi si Doris Magsaysay ho na sila nakatira silang staff. So nng nabenta existing pa yata ‘yung list contract. So hindi sila umaalis pero pinipilitang silang umalis nung bagong owner. And allely ang bagong owner is Martin Romaldes.

 Ah yun ang sinasabi. >> Yun ang sinasabi mo kanina. >> Yes. >> At referring to Discaya. No, let’s ano no uh based on documents yung bahay naibenta sa isang corporation Golden Pant Holdings Corporation incidentally the major stockholder or yes stockholder uh also used to sit in the board of at least two corporations associated with the former speaker.

 Ito iyung ah Benget no Corporation. I think mining yata ito. Iyung isa iyung may joint venture sa ABSCBN. Ah andito yung pangalan. Teka R fromalde something. Ah so and another one I think Mark Venture something ano ah. at saka treasurer siya doon sa yun nga yung media company owned by Romaldes kasi Romaldes media something eh na may joint venture sa ABSCBN so yun ang association so no we’re not trying to implicate uh deform former speaker ano hindi tayo yung nagta-target dito dumating lang sa ating attention but we cannot disregard

because sabi ko nga there were persistent reports na ang initial information nga eh sa pangalan ni Discaya na or kay Discaya na ibenta. So it appears now na hindi totoo kasi ah ang naging role lang allegedly ni Carly Descaya yun nga dumating siya doon February or January at sinasabihan sila umalis na kayo diyan.

 So yun lang ang pinagtataka natin. So ano hindi naman ito enough to implicate or to impl the former speaker. But you know this is something that the OJ or the ombossman and or the ombusman can follow through. No, we are only providing a lead for whatever it is worth. Iun lang ang purpose dito because if you really want to go after the so-called ay sabi niyo nga, huwag iyung sapsap at saka mga dilis ano hanapin yung malaking isda.

And this is the direction that we are taking. But I repeat, hindi ito enough. Itong information is not enough to implicate not even implicate the former speaker. This is just we may just consider this as a lead kasi merong connection but of course dinay naman ni Carla Descaya so let’s leave it at that.

 So with that uh I would like to ask your permission to excuse the two ladies. >> Ah meron pa. Sige. Okay. >> Thank you for the explanation, Mr.