Record of the Senate - Integrated Bar of the Philippines

4 TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012their own respective processes. So, I have no hand at all in telling anyone: “Please choose SonnyAngara to be one of the spokespersons.” But the worst thing about this motion, Mr. President, is theinsinuation or the suspicion that I will be biased and prejudiced because of that relationship and this,Mr. President, the malicious insinuation that political favors have been extended to my province ofAurora, in effect, insinuating that my vote has already been bought as a result.They mentioned, Mr. President, three major projects that were just recently approved by theNEDA. And of the three, Mr. President, only one really concerns and was for Aurora, and that is theBaler-Casiguran Concreting Project. Mr. President, that project is not going to be funded by Philippinemoney, not by the savings and taxes of Filipinos. It will be funded wholly by the Korean government.I got that, Mr. President, three years ago during the past administration, not under this administration.The only thing that happened during this administration is that it was approved by NEDA, which isrequired for all foreign-funded projects.The other two, Mr. President, is a project, I think a circumferential road in Samar. I am verythankful and I am full of admiration for those who were able to secure that because Samar is such anundeveloped province and putting a circumferential road like that in Bohol would really make Samara destination of investments and tourism.The third project, Mr. President, is the bridge over Umiray River. Umiray River, for thosewho do not know it, is a river in Aurora, located in Dingalan, which supplies all the water for MetroManila through Angat Dam. And that project— I hope I was the one who initiated it but I did not,Mr. President— it was a project of Governor Suarez and Congressman Suarez funded again by theJapanese government, not by our own government.And yet, Mr. President, the petitioners have the gall and the audacity to suggest that these arepolitical favors for me. So, I reject that, Mr. President, and I reject it as an unthinking and illogicalconclusion that serves no purpose at all except to malign and make—I do not want to say it—it maybe a diversionary tactic on their part because we just scolded them yesterday for their unpreparedness.But I will not say that.Mr. President, they also cited the application of the judicial rule, the Code of Judicial Conduct.Mr. President, even a first-year law student who knows how to read will immediately conclude that theCode of Judicial Conduct is not applicable to the Senate, much less to the Impeachment Court.We have our own set of rules. And the only code or rules we adopted as suppletory are the Rulesof Court. So, that is completely irrelevant and immaterial. There they say my son is a party litigant.You see, even a first-year student will know that a party litigant is one who will suffer or benefit froma decision made. My son will not benefit from any decision either way. The only one who will benefitor suffer is our Chief Justice.And here are his lawyers who seem to device a strategy of almost antagonizing half of this Court.First, they want Senator Drilon to be inhibited, then Senator Guingona, they are pointing to SenatorsPangilinan and Recto because they simply happen to be partymates of the President.Mr. President, many of us are party members. We are affiliated in one way or the other with oneparty or another. And all of us, except, possibly, one or two parties, are all supportive of governmentreforms, of government programs. Does that mean that the entire Impeachment Court is biased andpartial?There is no other interpretation I can read in these actuations of the Defense except to destroy thecredibility of this Impeachment Court. I think that is the least that they ought to do because this couldbe the saving grace in our democracy. If you destroy the one pillar of justice, the Senate, which can