On July 15, the sixth day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano stood up to respond to statements made in an interview by National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag. The director had visited the Clark freeport zone to pursue one case, but, as he told reporters following him, he was convinced by a visit to the site of the 2019 Southeast Asian Games that the allegations of irregularity that have hounded the Games deserved to be investigated too. Cayetano famously chaired the Games’ organizing committee. (READ: NBI probes 2019 SEA Games: What we know so far)

This was a needlessly provocative statement from the already controversial NBI director, who, by the time of his visit to Clark, was already scheduled to testify in the impeachment trial. Senator Robin Padilla was provoked enough to call attention to it as soon as the trial resumed on July 15. (READ: [Rappler’s Best] A troll in the Senate)

After Padilla spoke, Cayetano took to the floor and, noting that the Rules of the Senate were “suppletory” to the rules governing the impeachment court, argued that a senator-judge may make a privilege speech even in open court. (Senator Kiko Pangilinan’s rejoinder suggests that this view is eminently disputable.)

“Someone can rise on a question of personal and collective privilege,” Cayetano said. “I won’t do that, but may I just respond to what Senator Padilla [said]”—and then spoke for about 12 minutes. Strictly speaking, it wasn’t a privilege speech; the presiding officer, Senator Chiz Escudero, explicitly called it a “manifestation.” But it had the shape and substance of someone rising on a question of personal and collective privilege. When he ended, he turned to Escudero and said, “Thank you for the leeway, Presiding Officer.” 

Must Read

[EDITORIAL] Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero, sawayin ang mga pasaway

This was the first time in the trial that I noticed a quirk in Cayetano’s interventions, or a technique: He would say one thing (“I won’t give a privilege speech”) and then do the exact opposite (deliver a privilege speech in all but name).

Reviewing my notes and looking up relevant footage, I see that he used the same technique at least twice more during his 12-minute speech. He defended his earlier position that the NBI director should adjust his travel schedule to the impeachment trial, not the other way around: “Mukha namang masama kapag ‘yung isang bureau head (It looks bad if a bureau head)”—and at this point he catches himself, recalibrates, and says, “The NBI director is a very important position, but it is a bureau.” Say one thing (“it is important”), do the opposite (treat it as unimportant).

He called on his colleagues to defend “the integrity of the court” by protecting its members who are burdened by attempts at intimidation, such as Matibag’s talk of opening a new investigation. These attempts are fundamentally unfair, he said. (To be sure, he is entirely right on this point.) Then he offers, in  a mix of Filipino and English, an example of unfairness:

“Well, if I turn it around, and say — I also investigated this yesterday — that I was told Director Matibag was supposedly angry (‘mainit daw ang ulo’) because the land that was given to the NBI already has a contractor, but he wants his own: Would that be fair to him?  No, that would be a Marites accusation.” 

“Marites (Mare, ano ang latest?)” is of course the colloquial shorthand for gossip. And saying one thing (“we should be fair”) and then doing the opposite (slyly introducing scandalous information about Matibag) is the Cayetano shuffle.

Follow-up question

The sixth trial day was devoted to the oral arguments on the pending subpoenas for the bank documents, AMLC records, and tax returns of the Vice President. The seventh, which took place on July 20, was mainly for the senators to probe the arguments of the prosecution and the defense.

When it was Cayetano’s turn, he resorted to his favorite technique again.

Questioning Akbayan Representative Chel Diokno, a member of the House prosecution panel and an experienced litigator, on the ruling in Duterte vs. House of Representatives, he said: “I’ll not argue with you because that’s not my job here. I’ll follow the Pia Cayetano style and move to the defense, but just a follow-up question on that. So, I respect your belief on that, but my point is” — and he proceeded to argue with Diokno. Say one thing (“I won’t argue with you”), then do the opposite (get argumentative).

At this point, my notes read like this:

[after answer] but on that point …

[after answer] I agree, but …

Perhaps the clearest example of the give-with-one-hand, take-with-the-other rhythm of the Cayetano shuffle is his response to Diokno’s answer to his own question about what he himself called “the absence of authentic supporting record” in the impeachment complaints filed in Congress. When Diokno gave a two-part reply (there were attachments, yes, but Congress is not limited to what is contained in the attachments), Cayetano said: “Yes. I’m not questioning if there’s an attachment. I’m questioning whether there was — I’m asking questions. I’m not even questioning it. I’m asking questions if there were authentic records. So, I’ll move on.” (Like the other lengthy passages I quoted, this is taken from the official Senate journal.)

So: Say one thing (“I’m not questioning if there’s an attachment”), then do the opposite (“I’m questioning whether there was,” what? What else but attachments? ). In truth, Cayetano did question “the absence” of supporting records. He moved on only when Diokno set him straight.

I’ll stop here, but it’s a long trial; I’ll keep my notes up to date. – Rappler.com

Veteran journalist John Nery anchors Rappler’s special coverage of the Duterte impeachment trial. A Rappler columnist, he hosts In the Public Square with John Nery, which airs on Rappler platforms every Wednesday at 8 pm.