Speaker Pantaleon “Bebot” Alvarez on Thursday said that showing the alleged sex video of Senator Leila de Lima during the House probe would be a violation of the law, which clearly states that pornographic material is prohibited and is not admissible as evidence.
In a radio interview over DZMM, Alvarez said the House of Representatives justice committee inquiry on the proliferation of drugs at the Bilibid prison was not a criminal proceeding to try De Lima for her supposed role when she was justice secretary.
Alvarez said the inquiry was only conducted in aid of legislation to come up with proposed laws to stamp out the illegal drug trade at the national penitentiary.
READ: Alvarez: Nothing wrong if De Lima ‘sex video’ shown in probe
“Dapat tandaan natin na hindi naman ito criminal proceedings, na yung video tape na yun ay gagamitin natin para i-prosecute ang isang tao. Ito, fact-finding lang po ito, naghahanap lang po tayo ng katotohanan dito,” Alvarez said.
“Wala po tayong pino-prosecute na tao. Sa tingin ko naman walang paglabag sa batas,” he added.
(We must keep in mind that these are not criminal proceedings where the video tape would be used to prosecute a person. This is only fact-finding, we are only seeking the truth here.)
Gabriela Rep. Emmi De Jesus first raised the idea that showing De Lima’s alleged sex tape during the hearing is a violation of Republic Act 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Law, which she said penalizes acts that aim to annihilate any person’s honor, dignity and integrity.
READ: Gabriela solon: Showing alleged De Lima sex video illegal
De Jesus said the law punishes the act of broadcasting, through any device, photos, videos or recordings of sexual acts or any similar activities of a person except for the purpose of suppressing or prosecuting the crime of photo or video voyeurism and upon a court order.
“No man, woman or child, no matter how justified the case is presented for such proposals, deserves to be subjected to the prospect of one’s private affairs exposed,” De Jesus said.
Alvarez maintained that the showing the video is material evidence to establish the illicit relationship between De Lima and her former driver Ronnie Dayan, who Bilbid inmates alleged collected drug money for De Lima at the Bilibid.
READ: NBI exec claims he gave P10M ‘drug quota’ to De Lima | 1st witness testifies De Lima got millions from drug lord
“Papayagan natin iyan kasi mayroong denial at mayroon kasing allegations na binanggit yung mga inmates na ang kolektor ay yung driver ni Secretary De Lima. Ngayon, sinasabi niya wala naman silang relasyon at walang… maliban nga na naging driver niya. Dine-deny niya na mayroong personal relations between the two of them. Ngayon, sa akin, kung yung sex video ay magpapatunay ng relasyon nila, bakit naman hindi?” Alvarez said.
(We will allow it because there is denial and there are allegations where the inmates said that the collector is De Lima’s driver. Now, she is saying that they have no other relationship aside from Dayan being her driver. She denies any personal relations between the two of them. Now, for me, if the sex video would prove their personal relationship, why not [show it]?)
He said the video should not be blocked as material evidence if it would show the whole picture of De Lima’s alleged involvement in the drug trade in cahoots with carnapping convict Jaybee Sebastian, who allegedly raised campaign funds for the senator.
“Huwag masyado tayong matakot sa katotohanan (Let us not be too fearful of the truth),” Alvarez said.
READ: Aguirre: DOJ may present in court alleged De Lima sex videos | Duterte: De Lima’s ‘sexcapades’ led her to crime, drug pay-offs
However, the law states that any video prohibited under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act should not be admissible as evidence in a legislative hearing.
According to Section 7 or “Inadmissibility of Evidence,” any record, photo or video which violates the said law should not be admissible as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
The law prohibits the taking of photo or video, as well as copying, selling, distributing, and broadcasting such videos of any person performing sexual acts in the internet, cellphone, VCD/DVD, and other similar means or device.
The law imposes a penalty of three to seven years imprisonment, and a fine of P100,000 to P500,000.
The law, however, does not render it illegal to use the sex video for a civil or criminal investigation or trial for the crime of voyeurism provided that there is a court order. CDG/rga