FULL TEXT: INQ&A with Senator Leila De Lima

Nery: Kala ko magjob-wanted ad tayo ngayon eh… So it will be coming from the Senate pool? Yung secretary? Ma’am I’m sorry, who is your vice chair?

De Lima: Senator Kiko.

Nery: Is Senator Cayetano member of your committee?

De Lima: No, I don’t think so. I think the minority members in my committee are Senators Trillanes and Escudero. Senator Alan is not really minority.

Nery: He’s floating.

De Lima: We don’t know yet.

Nery: Senator we have a question from Joe Pedro. It’s kind of direct, do you have the courage to expose to the public murderers and criminals of the in the Philippine Governement.

De Lima: Murderers and criminals. Well, of course kung meron we need to expose criminals whether inside or outside government, need to be exposed.

Nery: I don’t mean to put you on the spot, ano, but in your privilege speech, you said accuse only after you investigate. Pero in the past month meron nang mga instances na may mga high officials like 5 police generals inaccuse, tapos saka pa pala yung investigation.  How should we think about this issue? I mean, is a group of senators talking to the president, saying maybe this is not the way to do this? Paano ba ito?

De Lima: Well I don’t intend to pass judgment on the style of the president kasi yun ay parang naging, you know, naming and shaming tact niya, just to show how resolute, how determined he is. Because he’s a lawyer, you now that. You know, yung mga legal presumptions, due process. Many would appreciate that style, kasi it instills fear dun sa mga may kasalanan. But what if mga inosente? Now dun sa 5 police generals, we’ve read in the papers na about two of them, meron na daw nakitaan na ebidensya. What about the three others? Meron din ba? In the meantime na napahiya na sila sap ubliko, can you imagine the effect on their family? What if one, two, or there of them are actually innocent? Then, even yung siansabing dalawa na nakitaan ng ebidensya, foes that mean they are already guilty? Dadaan pa naman sa proseso yan. Ano ba yang mga ebidensiya na yan, tama ba? Totoo ba? So mahirap mag, ikaw, kudos tayo, hands off tayo sa ganung style ng pangulo na talagang matapang. Stop, stop, you know.

Nery: Ginamit niyo rin sa privilege speech, s-t-o-p.

De Lima: Subconsciously.

Nery: Ma’am, we have less than four minutes. If I can ask this question from Dianne, maybe aside from the three laws, the 1 resolution and the 2 laws we discussed here, what law in the Senate would you like to pass that could greatly affect the lives of daily Filipinos?
De Lima: Marami. That’s very briad. Number 1 really, anti-poverty. Then job generation. And then addressing criminality. Reforming the criminal justice sector. Dun nga dapat muna ang focus. Let’s fix first the criminal justice system.

Sabillo: This is actually from the same person, one of our questions was that why is life imprisonment the best punishment for criminals, I guess instead of death penalty?

De Lima: Because death penalty cannot be the best solution to criminality. It cannot be. Hindi lang, wala naman talagang empirical evidence, marami ng studies ng leading criminologists na ganun ang conclusion, there is no direct correlation. Maybe initially, but not the overall. The period of time where death penalty prevails in a particular society or country, wala naming naktiaan na klarado na finding an merong correlation. So it’s not really a deterrent, and then ang trend ngayon, globally is towards abolition of death penalty. So life imprisonment, basta ba, is the correct penalty imposed and it has been imposed swiftly. The certainty of punishment, swiftness in punishment, and correct service of the penalty. Kaya nga kailangan din natin ioverhaul at ireform yung correctional system para hindi na ulit mangyari yung nadiskubre naming noon na (inaudible, they were lording it over, luxurious ?? 2:55) etc, na paulit ulit na sinasabi nila, na nawala na nga yun eh. It’s as if it’s still the prevailing condition in the Bilibid. It’s actually part of what they’re trying to discredit me, na wala naman talaga akong nagawa daw noon.  But it precisely stopped, nawala na yung kubols (?), nadismantle na, nasa building 14 na. Yung mga malalking eug convicts nay an, binabantayan sila dun. Wala na yung kubol kubol nila. You know, so, ganun dapat.

Nery: Actually marami pa kaming gusting itanong ano, kaso we’ve run out of time. We’d like to thank you for sharing your time with us. Personally we’d like to thank you for raising three very important questions, ano, one is what is the threshold for killings. I mean, that is a question everybody should ask himself or herself. Second is when the future generation would ask us what did you do during this time, this surging of killings, maybe we should have our own answer to that, and then lastly what if inosente, ano? So Tine, kailangan na tayong magpaalam.
Sabillo: Yeah unfortunately we have to wrap it up.

Nery: Again Senator thank you very much for you time, we will be following your work closely in the Senate.

De Lima: We’re preparing already for a Senate inquiry, so I hope, I hope the majority in the committee on justice and human rights would support the inquiry, that they would not do things to block it.

Nery: Ma’am, maybe one last quick question, nung nagshake hands kayo ni president sa SONA, what was going through your head?

De Lima: Syempre nabigla po tayo noon. Hindi kop o inaasahan yun. But I took it very positively. Parang sabi ko nga, icebreaker yun, and apra to tell one and all na wala naman kaming personalan. He wouldn’t do that if pinepersonal niya ako. I know ever since hindi naman niya ako pinepersonal. So through that gesture, he was also able to show to the people na kahit kami nagbabanggaan sa ilan ilang issues, hindi naman kami nagpepersonalan sa isa’t isa. And that’s okay, that’s good.

Nery: Thank you, Senator Leila De Lima. Ika nga, walang personalan, trabaho lang. This has been INQ&A, thank you and see you next Tuesday.

LAST WEEK’S INQ&A: FULL TEXT: INQ&A with Senator Joel Villanueva