Hours after giving a strongly-worded privilege speech at the Senate, Senator Leila de Lima joined INQUIRER.net on Tuesday for an hour-long interview to discuss the rise in the number of summary killings related to the administration’s anti-illegal drugs campaign.
READ: FULL TEXT: Sen. Leila de Lima privilege speech on drugs, killings
De Lima, who has gained both admirers and bashers for speaking out against the spate of killings, also discussed her plans as chair of the Senate committee on justice and talked about the criticisms raised against her.
INQ&A, hosted by INQUIRER.net Editor in Chief John Nery and Chief of Reporters Kristine Sabillo, is broadcast live every Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m. via the recently launched INQ 990 Television (Digital Terrestrial Television), Radyo Inquirer 990AM, and INQUIRER.net’s Facebook and Youtube accounts.
Inquirer 990 TV can be viewed on ABS-CBN’s TV Plus, RCA and Godan digital TV boxes.
Every week, INQ&A will feature an important political figure. Next week’s guest is Senator Vicente Sotto III.
Below is the full transcript of the interview with De Lima.
John Nery: Maayong gabi. My name is John Nery, I’m editor in chief of Inquirer.net, and with me is our co-host, the chief of reporters of Inquirer.net, Kristine Sabillo.
Kristine Sabillo: Thank you to everyone who is watching right now. Our guest today is very in demand and in fact very timely because of the interesting, well-applauded privilege speech that she gave at the Senate this afternoon. Before I introduce her, I want to give three things that you might not know about her. So, number one is that she took up history in college in De La Salle University.
Leila de Lima: History and political science.
Sabillo: History and political science. Number two, according to her staff, she cooks really good laing and Bicol Express. And number three, she’s one of the country’s top election lawyers and she served as counsel to Koko Pimentel when he filed for his electoral protest case in 2007.
De Lima: And also Alan.
Sabillo: And Alan Cayetano. Ladies and gentlemen, the very feisty Senator Leila de Lima.
De Lima: Good evening. Good evening, John. Good evening, Tine. And good evening to the viewers to the listeners, and thank you for having me in your program.
Nery: Thank you, senator, and welcome to the Inquirer hot seat. It’s a milestone for you today—your first privilege speech—and I think it’s safe to say it was a controversial one. We have many questions. We’ll spend several minutes, many minutes talking about this. But if you will allow me, I’d like to ask first a question that I’ve heard other people also ask: What made you run for the Senate? Have you always thought of serving in high office?
De Lima: No, everything that happened to me in my public life has been unexpected. That’s what happened to me when I was first appointed CHR chair, I never expected it. The same thing when I was appointed DOJ Secretary and when I decided to run, that was also a surprise thing. I was actually hesitant. But then I reflected on it, and because my choice would just be retire early or go to private practice. But after all that I went through—CHR, DOJ and all those high-profile cases that I handled—the controversies that I’ve been engaged in, going back to private life, going back to private practice seemed to be…
Nery: Too tame.
De Lima: Too tame.
Nery: What was the deciding point, senator?
De Lima: Well, of course the President talked to me. President Aquino, PNoy, and former Secretary Mar Roxas. So they encouraged me to run and they said that sayang naman. Effectively they said, sayang naman, just consider your Senate run as just a continuation of what you’ve been doing. Your advocacies and also your ideas, especially about justice system reforms.
Sabillo: Ma’am, how has it been so far as a legislator, as a senator, and did you expect to get the justice committee?
De Lima: Well, it’s actually the natural choice. I understand no one else was aspiring for it.
Sabillo: No one else wanted.
De Lima: Yes, that’s what I know. It’s the natural choice for me because it’s like a throwback to my CHR [and] DOJ days. This happened to me—both Justice and Human Rights—happened to be my core competencies because of my previous posts.
Nery: But I understand that in Senator Alan Cayetano’s campaign to be [Senate] president, the choice of justice committee chair was actually a crucial one. And it was, if I understand correctly, anyone but Leila.
De Lima: I read about it. I read about it that he was opposing my chairmanship. Was saying something to the effect that why would we allow her to handle this committee when we know about her stand on very major, major proposed legislative measures. And that especially the death penalty. The re-imposition of death penalty, lowering the age of criminal responsibility. My position on those matters are common knowledge and so I think that was his point. Why me as chair of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights when the committee would be tackling these very major pieces of proposed legislation by this administration. So that’s the (unclear) being an obstruction of this, which I strongly disagree.
Nery: Was there any viable challenger for Justice Committee chair?
De Lima: None that I know of. That’s what I learned. No one was interested in the Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I don’t know but that was the information.
Sabillo: Normally we ask like what the Senate dynamics are in choosing someone to head a certain committee. But in this case, so it was just because you were the only one who wanted it?
De Lima: Maybe that’s one of the reasons. And well, Senate President Koko was telling me that he’s actually able to explain to the President that because he was eyed as the senate president, he was vying for the senate presidency, and then when they were talking about chairmanships, he was saying that he would want as a Senate that would run like a well-oiled machine. And therefore, it’s important that those chairing or heading committees would be within the competencies or the particular interests and advocacies of the senators concerned.
Nery: Speaking of well-oiled machines, I think this is the time for us to ask about the privilege speech.
Sabillo: Yeah, so we’ve been talking about the justice committee, your past experience with human rights. So, I guess there’s no point in delaying discussing the much-awaited privilege speech from you. We’ve been wanting to guest you since last week but we knew that you were working on this, on the resolution on the inquiry on the summary killings related to the anti-drug campaign of the administration. What prompted you to file this resolution and give such a speech?
De Lima: Well, I had to file that resolution because, you know, the facts are there, the statistics are there. And by the day, the statistics are growing. You have your own kill list. Inquirer has their own kill list. Other media networks has its own list—CHR, even the PNP. Of course, there are some variants in the figures. Now I don’t see any reason why not. I don’t see any reason why we should not conduct this inquiry. That’s why I was a little aghast by the statement of Sen. Alan kanina when he was delivering his own privilege speech is that konti pa lang daw. I have here some transcript of exactly what he said.
“Bakit po napakarami ng pinapatay ngayon? Actually, hindi po marami, konti pa.” Now, what is the threshold? How many killings are we willing to bear? How many more killings do we need to see before we act? What is the threshold, is it hundreds, thousands, one thousand, five thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand? We don’t have to wait for that. As expressed by Sen. Risa earlier, one dead body is just one too many, particularly the cases of mistaken identity, the cases of just being there at the wrong place at the wrong time. There are more and more cases of that. And I was also a bit aghast when the point about we should instead attend to other urgent matters, not this inquiry being proposed by Sen. De Lima.
What could be more urgent than looking into these killings, particularly the innocent ones. I don’t see that point, although I do agree that we need also to focus on measures that will strengthen the criminal justice system. I do agree that it’s because of the general frustration of the people that there seem to be apathy and a sort of general acceptance of what is happening. That’s exactly the same environment, atmosphere at the time that the DDS phenomenon was there. That’s why CHR had to investigate.
Nery: It’s also possible that people might just be waiting for a provocation, a spark. Like perhaps your speech.
De Lima: As I mentioned in my speech, there may not be a general outrage yet but we could also already see some undercurrent, you know, some sentiments already. And that’s why I had to highlight the fact that there is this group of UP students—no position, no power—but they took the initiative, they’re doing that. Demonstrating. They started this cardboard, this hashtag cardboard justice. They’re not in any position, they don’t have power, you know they’re just students and yet they’re acting. What about us? So I actually emphasized that.
Nery: Did you choose the date? Did you choose to speak today, August 2?
De Lima: Well I did intend to deliver a privilege speech as a prelude to the senate inquiry because my proposed resolution was referred to my own committee as the primary committee—Committee of Justice and Human Rights. And as a second committee, the Committee on Public Order and Illegal Drugs chaired by Sen. Ping Lacson. So I thought that that should be proceeded into the holding, the formal holding of the senate inquiry should be proceeded by a privilege speech. I’ve been mulling over this although the initial focus supposedly, the only focus of the intended privilege speech is supposed to be the state of summary killings, but I had to inject some matters of personal privilege because of the relentless, vicious attacks being hurled against me especially through the social media.
Nery: Well, we wanna ask questions, we wanna cluster about social media campaign against you. Online and offline, I would say. Can we scroll down the prompter? I’d like to ask, I think question number 3 from Jerome Toledo. This is related to Resolution No. 9. You’re conducting an inquiry soon, is this political since you are part of LP and the legislative leaders are PDP-Laban.
De Lima: Not at all. A matter as important as this, as serious as this should transcend any political consideration. And it’s the farthest from my mind—doing things with political objective. I’m not that one. I’m not that kind of public servant.
Sabillo: That’s also my question, ma’am. You’re now obviously are the forefront of the campaign against summary killings resulting from the anti-drug campaign. Why are you doing this despite the backlash?
De Lima: It’s the right thing to do. I could’ve said, yeah, go with the tide. Also, keep mum about it and especially in light of this relentless resistant, vicious attacks. You know, also sorts of dirt being thrown at me, especially—you know, masakit yan eh? Na ang tawag sa’yo drug lord, coddler, tumatanggap sa mga convicts. So you know, to put a stop it, hindi na sana ako gagalaw, hindi na sana ako gagalaw, hindi na sana ako magsasalita. But this is the right thing to do.
Sabillo: It’s very interesting, ma’am, you mentioned in your speech about the things you’ve done with Bilibid when you were still the Justice secretary. I do remember that we had a Justice reporter. She would sometimes text us in the middle of the night, there would be a raid in bilibid, they would be confiscating a lot of things. It’s true, I think a lot of people forgot that it was during your term that those kinds of things…
De Lima: Sabi ko nga, binabaliktdad na nila lahat, bakit ganoon? Eh ako nga nag-simula niyan. And you know, kinasuhan pa nga ako ng mga yan until now, those cases are still pending including an anti-graft case before the Office of the Ombudsman filed by one of those Bilibid 90. One or two of those Bilibid 90. Anti-graft daw because I had no authority daw to transfer them from Bilibid temporarily to the NBI Detention Facility. And nandiyan yung death threats, and in fact, right now there’s still the security threat coming from…..
Nery: I can only…
De Lima: Ito ngayon ang napapala ko?
Sabillo: You’re now in cahoots with them.
De Lima: Naging protector nila (drug pushers and users). It’s so unfair, it’s crazy.
READ: Leila hurt after being tagged as drug lord coddler
Nery: I want to respond to that. I have a question, specifically about that. Why are they doing this?
De Lima: I don’t know. Marami naman sigurong puwedeng dahilan. Maybe they want the senate inquiry to push through for some reason.
Nery: Is it possibly connected to what you mentioned earlier. Yung death penalty bill?
De Lima: I don’t know, hindi pa naman siguro. Baka ito lang nga. Because ang perspective kasi nila, ang mindset nila is that, kung iimbestigahan yan then mawawala yung momentum ng law enforcers. Ngayon, highly-motivated sila ngayon with the backing of the powers that be. So kung iimbestigahan daw, made-demoralize, it would dampen their resolve.
I actually disagree. Kasi kaya nga gusto ko po magkaroon ng inquiry, para malaman natin ang buong sitwasyon. Alamin natin kung may problema nga ba talaga. Bakit ganon? May mga namamatay na hindi nlalaman kung ano ‘yung mga dahilan. Basta sasabihin na lang it’s either nanlaban or nag-agaw. Lalo na ‘yung mga cases of salvaging na hindi alam kung mga sinu-sino ang gumawa niyan. Nasusunod ba ‘yung mga dapat nasusunod sa mga batas, sa mga patakaran, ‘yung mga operational guidelines? Ginagawa ba ng authorities specifically internal affairs unit? That was a good point raised by Senator Dick Gordon. He pointed to a particular law which actually mandates whenever there is someone killed, there is a casualty in law enforcement operations.
Automatic dapat na dapat imbestigahan. Ganun din kasi sa other jurisdictions. Like the United States, tatanungin po natin ‘yan. Inquiry, ginagawa ba ‘yan ng internal affairs unit? May kulang bas a kapasidad nila sa resources nila? Sa mga tao nila na gawin ‘yung trabaho nila? So kasama po dapat dyan lahat. This one, they should welcome this inquiry. Gusto ko lang makatulong na above board, ang man yan, alam ‘yung ginagawa para hindi ma-taint ‘yung mukha ng buong kampanya against drugs. So bakit tayo mapaparanoid sa mga iniisip kung hindi naman ‘yun ‘yung pakay, pakay ko.
Nery: I’m trying hard to think of a previous instance na a speaker of the House actually pinpointed a senator of the republic who said “I want to investigate her” tapos ang kasama pa ‘yung Justice Secretary and now, he Solicitor General.
De Lima: That’s why I have to raise for the personnel and collective privileged. It is certainly breached of inter-parliamentary and courtesy. Kasi as I said nga, hindi naman ito ang pinakadefense ko. Gusto ko sila mismo, kapwa ko senador mismo, ang mag-raise niyan. Not in defense of Leila de Lima but in defense of the Institution. Di dapat naman talaga nila ginagawa iyan nang basta-basta na lang. Because we are have co-institutions. We are inter-parliamentary. Courtesy. And look at that, hindi lang naman si speaker ang tumitira sa’kin at kung anu-anng insinuations. Si Solicitor General, at ang latest, is the secretary of Justice. These are the President’s men. Now what am I supposed to think and say about that? These are the President’s men trying to discredit a certain senator.
Sabillo: Senator, that’s the question now. When you said a while ago that they don’t know what they’re up to, who are you referring to? Do you know who is behind this campaign to discredit you?
De Lima: Alam niyo, I’m actually giving them, the President’s men, the benefit of the doubt. I suspect na merong mga element diyan na sila ang nagfi-feed ng mga kasinungalingan na iyan; those fabricated lies that were manufactured. Nakikipag-jamming ako sa mga drug lords, party ako sa kanila, tumatanggap daw ako sa kanila, these must be coming from—Alam mo ‘yun, mahirap din naman kasing magturo.
READ: De Lima names Alvarez, Calida, Aguirre behind hatchet job
Sabillo: So you’re not yet sure po? Hae you considered the possibility that it came from a higher office like Malacanang?
De Lima: I wouldn’t say that at this point. In fact, sana hindi nakakarating ‘yung mga ganyan sa pangulo. O sana kung nakakarating po sa kanya, sana hindi siya naniniwala. You know what I call them agents of vengeance. It could be any of those of some of those na natapaka ho natin. Alam niyo na ang dami nating hinandle na high-profile cases. It can be a confluence of any of these but there may not be a deliberate grouping to get me. But it just happened na meron na silan commonality of objective.
Nery: Senator, maybe just one more question about this drug lord coddler thing. We have a question here. It may sound a little unfair but maybe we’ll give a chance to convince this guy. “Aside from the death threats that you’ve received, how can you convince us that you are not the protector of the base-scale drug lords?”
De Lima: May I just tell you, if you’re here. Whoever he is, I will look at you straight in the eye and I will tell you that’s a complete lie. Why should I be a coddler of these? SInabi kona po sa inyo kanina, ako nga po ang nag-raid sa kanila, ako ang nagahirap sa kanila. Ako ang nag-isolate sa kanila at kinasuhan nila ako. And then now I’m a coddler? Lininis naman po ang bilibid pero hindi pa completely malinis. Pero there have been successive operations: galugad. Under the former director and the current director. Doon po nagsimula lahat niyan.
Nery: And you said something in your privileged speech about not finding something?
De Lima: I had to say that. Madalas po nating naririnig iyan—merong shabu lab. Eh iyon nga po ang unang ipinahanap ko. Nagraid kami kasi narinig ko na rin po iyan na meron di umanong shabu lab mismo sa loob. So we had to look for it in the first major raid and in the successive raids. Until now, may raid under the operation galugad. Wala naman pong mahanap na shabu lab. Unless every each and every soul in that penitentiary are in cahoots with each other, hidni naman po basta bastang matatago ‘yung shabu lab kasi aamoy siyempre iyan. Kasi there’s no such thing. Anong naging problema sa bilibid? Kasi this drug lord were controlling the drug trade from within. They did not manufacture those drugs from within. If they had to manufacture those drugs, they had to be in volumes. May ilan ilan na nakapasok na mga sachet sachet. You know dahil sa paikipagkunchaba sa mg prison guards na madali lang naman gawin, madali silang nabibili at naba-bribe. Nakakapasok ang ilan ilan for personal use of joint inmates which are drug addicts. Pero to say na nanggagaling ang droga sa loob, at yun ang binibenta sa labas, ang mnamanifacture, they don’t need that. Kasi nga dati nang may drug sa labas. ‘Yun yung sinasabi ng pangulo na these drugs come from somewhere else, from another country. Kaya nga iniinsist niya na walang big time drug lord. Hindi po ako masyadong nag-aagree dun maliban na lang siguro sa perspective.
Nery: Senator, I think a much as this issue is concerned we’d like to make a paid to that ‘no. Okay, we’re gonna get a short break and this is INQ and A with the woman of the hour, Senator Leila de Lima.
(commercial break)
Nery: Nagsimula ‘yung privilege speech niya, she was really clear of her support for President Duterte’s war on drugs and then after that she spoke against the demolition jobs against her. Meron din ‘yung pinag-usapan yung well-oiled machine ng social media operatives and then after that she talked about the dehumanization kasi nga ang daming namamatay na parang sanay na tayo. Dun siya natatakot, culture of impunity. And then she asked, is there another way to do this? To wage this war against cardboard justice? And then she ended by explaining why she needed to file Senate Resolution No. 9. Senator, welcome back, ‘no. I don’t want to put you on the spot but anong sense mo dun sa mga colleagues mo in the Senate? Do they have a stomach on the Senate Inquiry on the war on drugs?
De Lima: I want to think they have. I think they have the stomach but are they willing is another question. They can do it. I mean, to be honest about it, the fact that may nag-eexpress ng reservations about the senate for various reasons like being premature or katulad ng sinabi ko nga na it might dampen them and the spirit of the law and enforcers, ‘yung momentum nila masisira, o kaya “oh, puro lang naman allegation, may proof na ba kayo?” That’s why it’s called a senate inquiry not a court of law na kailangan first ma complaint kasi kailangan ‘yun sa iba. Ako na ang nagsasabi na wala pa raw complaints pero meron na. Unti unti na meron nang nagfa-file pero nung una halos wala. They are putting various reasons not to proceed to the senate inquiry. We’re just talking about a handful of senators. I would like to believe that the majority of the senators would like this senate inquiry to push through because the matter is so important. You have to scrutinize everything, what is happening, really, in the war against drugs. Why are there so many killings?
READ: De Lima: Some senators gave ‘reasons’ for bucking probe
Sabillo: Ma’am, have you discussed this with the Senate President? Have you sat down and actually discussed the issue? Is he supporting you in this resolution?
De Lima: I’d like to believe that he is supportive of the resolution.
Nery: Something you said earlier, ngayon ko lang talaga naintindihan yung consequence non ‘no. You said earlier that Koko Pimentel had actually talked to the President about his plan to name you the Justice Committee Chair. So the President knew?
De Lima: Yes.
Nery: Which, if reading between the lines correctly, gives you the courage to—he demolition job, its not going all the way to the President kasi parang alam naman niya na (unclear).
De Lima: Yes. Kung meron man na ginagawa ang pangulo, ay balik po ako sa sinasabi ko kanina, na baka nga meron lang na mga nagbibigay sa kanya ng maling impormasyon. Maybe there are personalities around him na feeding him the wrong information. Kasi ang ang impression talaga ng ilan sa kanila especially those na not personally know me, in their minds I think I’m the enemy of the President; that I’m a pain in the ass of this administration. In their minds so therefore, sa tingin nila they are doing a favor for to the President by putting me down.
Nery: How would you describe yourself, Ma’am? Your relationship with the President, are you a pain in the neck or?
De Lima: No, I’m not. Kasi kung alam lang sana ng karamihan, na marami naman po sa mga planno ng Pangulo ay suportado ko. Dito lang kami “nagkakainitan.” Dito sa mga issues na ito. Death penalty, summary killings, and well, di ko pa nga naartculate masyado ‘yung tungkol sa lowering of wage; criminal responsibility. But all other plans of this administration, gusto ko naman. You know the peace talks, of course the FOI, and then no to endo, although hindi naman complete. And then ‘yung anti-illegal mining especially black sand mining. I recently filed a bill prohibiting black sand mining. And also anti-human trafficking and whistleblowers protection. And no demolition without relocation. Marami akong gusto sa mga plano niya, sa mga sinabi niya. That’s why I support him sa mga bagay na ‘yun. So simply because I disagree on these three issues, kalaban na ako? ‘Yun kasi yata’yung nasa mind ng mga nakapaligid sa kanya eh. And I hope the President realizes that.
Nery: One last question na lang about sa privileged speech and maybe we can go on to other legislations you are preparing. Question from Weng… Do you think the Filipinos have become apathetic to the killings?
De Lima: Yeah, to a great extent. That’s why we need to do something at this point and not wait you know until kasi ang sinasabi ko nga national sociopathy and then hindi pwede po, hindi pwede na wala na lang. It would have irreversible effect on the psychology particularly on the young people, of the children na growing under atmosphere or environment that it’s okay to kill, its okay to see dump dead bodies in whatever corner, so mali po yun. I don’t want to be blamed later by the future generation that you didn’t do something about it, at the time that you could still do something. Yun naman po ang cliché, but that’s how I take things.
Sabillo: There are people who decry what is happening right now, but there are people who are not just apathetic but are supportive of the killings ang they probably feel that through that it’s faster to deal with the drug problem. Actually there is one person asking how would you respond to those critising in social media that you are undermining the good anti-drug campaign.
De Lima: Again may I correct that, I’m not at all undermining, I want to strengthen this campaign by making sure that the law enforcers are not violating the law, are not violating the rights of others. Hindi pwede po isakprisyo yung mga prinsipyo natin, yung mga nasa saligang batas nasa bill of rights in the name of fighting criminality.
Nery: Senator, as promised we move on to other topics. Meron po kayong Senate Bile No. 369, an act institutionalizing a criminal investigation system repealing for a purpose and so on, prescribing a uniformed system of preliminary investigation.
De Lima: That’s again one of my contributions to the fight to the campaign of the administration against criminality kasi alam naman ho natin kaya ito nangyayari dahil nga frustrated ang mga tao sa takbonng ating justice system, particulary criminal justice system masyadong mabagal, and yung walang swift delivery of justice. Maraming bottlenecks and it takes an average of 7 to 8 years to prosecute criminal cases, sometimes it’s more than 8 years. Issa pong nakikita kong bottleneck ay yung delay sa preliminary investigation. Why not diretso na na tinutulungan ng mga prosecutors the investigators in the case build-up of cases. The fusion of the role of the prosecutors on one hand and the police investigators, yan ang sistema sa ibang bansa eh, And then pag sapat na yung ebidensya diretso na na ifi-file ng prosecutors sa korte. And the court will make the preliminary determination. Gusto ko nga taasan yung probable cause threshold eh, masyadong mababa yun. Pwede sanang prima facie or preponderance of evidence something higher than the current threshold of probable cause, but of course lesser than the guilt beyond reasonable doubt threshold. That will hold, that should be the standard during the trial itself.
Nery: Can you talk about how much time would be taken away, for in sense, the average is 7 to 8 years for criminal case. Pag naging batas po to how many years will be taken away.
De Lima: There will be a significant reduction. Baka two years pwede na as an average. Although ideally, dapat mga one year lang pero kung mga 2 to 3 years that should be an improvement, a much improvement.
Sabillo: So it would be more of streamlining the investigation it wouldn’t like doing away with a necessary step because they would be doing together anyway.
De Lima: Kasi yung pag iimbistiga naman ng isang krimen is either may mag-file ng complaint na biktima or to propio because under the law our law enforcement authorities like PNP and NBI can motu propio or initiate an investigation with or without complaint. So sometimes, so marami nga akong pinapa-imbestiga sa NBI walang complaint basta ba nababasa sa diyaryo nire-refer ko na, ito pakitingnan ito, lalo na yung mga high profile and the NBI would investigate and they would file the complaint with the national prosecution service. Why not at the first instance pa lang pag imbestiga pa lang ng NBI kasama na yung prosecutors because prosecutors would know what type of evidence are needed, what evidence is strong or not, what evidence is admissible and competent or not. Tinutulungan na agad dapat yung mga investigators para by the time that the case is filed in court, malakas na siya.
Nery: Senator you also filed Senate Bill No. 197 to abolish the penalty of imprisonment in libel cases, music to our ears. Can you talk about this?
De Lima: Well we all know that under the current law revised penal code and even cyber crime prevention act libel is punishable by imprisonment and or fine. Now, I’m proposing the abolition of imprisonment as a penalty. That’s why it’s loosely called decriminalization, but it is actually a misnomer. Because you are not totally decriminalizing libel, you’re still imposing a fine. So instead of imprisonment fine na lang because you know kailangan naman talaga palakasin ang freedom of information, ang media freedom. But we cannot conceive na hindi na dapat pinaparusahan ang libel kasi mayroon naman talagang excesses on the part of media practitioners. So in those cases na talaga na sumobra ang mga media practitioners, then there is still a remedy. The offended party can still file a case but this time, kung found guilty wala na dapat imprisonment.
Sabillo: Matagal na pong prinopropose yung bill nay an, but do you think what of the prospect of it passing into law especially like some of the legislators are the ones usually the target of some media practitioners.
De Lima: I would push for the passage of the bill into law, because that has been referred to committee on justice and human rights. So I would just have to convince my colleagues first in the committee and in the plenary to adopt that. But of course I need to ask whether there is a counterpart bill or similar bill at the House of Representatives.
Nery: Ma’am I forgot to ask, to go back to the privilege speech, you filed Senate resolution number 9. The committee on rules has referred it back to your committee. Can you talk about timetables? When will your first meeting be? Do you have some people in mind?
De Lima: This is already first week of August. Originally I was looking at 2nd and 3rd week of August, we might have to move it a bit because we will still discuss it first preliminarily within the committee kasi under the rules on inquiries in aid of legislation, it has to be calendared also for discussion within the committee. In other words magdedecide pa kung itutuloy yung Senate Inquiry, but I cannot yet call for that initial meeting ng committee because wala pa kaming committee secretary. So im just waiting for somebody in the Senate secretariat to be appointed as the committee secretary for the committee on justice and human rights kasi siya yung gagawa ng notices
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
