Who bears criminal responsibility for the May 13 Senate shootout? | ABOGADO

Añadido: 2026-05-22

[00:00:21]They've stood at the front lines of law, leadership, and public service. Attorney Karim Jimeo. Sharp, steady, a lawyer and educator, turns complex issues into clear insight. Attorney Mike Pledo, seasoned, fearless, a strategist and communicator whose voice has shaped public understanding of law and governance. Together they make the law accessible. Connecting principles with real life questions. Confronting the issues that define our nation. This is Abugado.

[00:01:06]Good evening and welcome to Abugado where we examine how the law responds when institutions collide and what happens when accountability enters the halls of power itself. I'm attorney Mike Toledo.

[00:01:19]>> And I'm attorney Karen Himeo. What happened inside the Senate on May 13 has triggered one of the most serious legal and constitutional confrontations in recent memory. Tonight, we examine the events, the institutions involved, and the criminal liability that may follow.

[00:01:37]Here's what unfolded.

[00:01:40]For the first time in Philippine history, gunfire erupted inside the Senate.

[00:01:48]More than 30 rounds fired. A fugitive senator cornered. State agents facing Senate guards in the halls of government itself. After the shootout, the questions only grew louder. Who fired first? Who gave the order? And when duty collides with power, who answers to the law? Some say the Senate defended itself from unlawful intrusion? Others argue law enforcers were simply carrying out their mandate. Tonight, we confront a question at the heart of justice. Who bears criminal responsibility for the May 13 Senate shootout?

[00:02:37]Joining us tonight is former Senate President Franklin Dillon, a veteran statesman and longtime legislator. He is widely regarded as one of the country's foremost authorities on constitutional law, legislative process, and the separation of powers.

[00:02:55]>> And also with us is attorney Howard Howe Kala, a constitutional lawyer and legal commentator. He has actively spoken on questions involving executive power, constitutional limits and institutional accountability. Gentlemen, Map Paneros, welcome to Abugado. Good evening.

[00:03:14]>> Good evening, Mike. Good evening, Karen.

[00:03:17]>> So, tonight's discussion is going to be very interesting and we have very good legal luminaries here to guide tonight's discussion. Let's first look at the format of the program.

[00:03:28]>> We begin with the opening statements.

[00:03:30]Each guest delivers a focused twominut statement laying out their perspective on the proposition. The conversation then unfolds through two key subtopics.

[00:03:41]For each subtopic, the guests take turns presenting their insights in twominut segments. Even if they share the same stand, they are encouraged to highlight different angles, supporting arguments or realworld applications. After both have spoken, we move into the open exchange, a six-minute free flowing discussion where the guests engage each other directly, ask questions, and expand on their points. Once both subtopics have been explored, we proceed to closing reflections where each guest is given 2 minutes to summarize their key messages.

[00:04:25]And now let's begin with the opening perspectives.

[00:04:30]Since the May 13 Senate shootout, the ombbudsman has suspended acting sergeant-at-arms Mao Applas. The DOJ says criminal charges are now being studied and questions continue to grow over who fired first, who enabled the confrontation, and who may ultimately bear criminal responsibility.

[00:04:52]Now, former Senate President Dilon Nino Frank, if I may say, from your perspective, what legal principles should guide the nation in assessing uh criminal liability for what happened that night? You have two minutes.

[00:05:08]Firstly, the rule is the Senate President has full control over the premises of the Senate and the Sergey at Arms is an extension of the personality in effect of the Senate President. In fact, by tradition, the Sergey at Arms is always dominated by the Senate President and we the entire Senate would defer to whoever is his choice. Now in this particular case is it general Alaska is what the name is. Yeah.

[00:05:41]>> I think he is an incumbent sergeant at arms of the commissioner appointment if I recall correctly and he was just designated by by Senate President Kaitano to be temporarily handling the uh the the affairs of the surgeent of the office of the sergeant-at-arms. That is why he was an acting sergeant because he has not been fully elected. But to your question, >> under our rules, uh, the Senate President has full control over the premises, but that's entirely different from the rules that would govern criminal liability. Let's let's make it clear because criminal liability is personal. Yes. uh but in so far as administrative and political uh situation is concerned, the Senate President has full control and therefore has full responsibility on on matters happening within the privacy of the Senate.

[00:06:40]>> Thank you so much, Senator Franklin Veron. Attorney Howard, beyond the gunfire itself, any Filipino will be asking right now whether the whether the incident reflects something deeper, a constitutional breakdown between institutions tasked to uphold the law. From your perspective, where should criminal accountability begin?

[00:07:02]>> Well, let me begin Karen and Mike by saying your title is agree. It's I don't think there is a shootout. The DIG the PNP already said the Senate was not under attack.

[00:07:15]>> I would rather Senate shoot me cuz the the gunfire as you said Karen uh came from inside. No. Uh it started from inside. There was no uh we cannot even uh say it's self-defense.

[00:07:33]No, because there was no no really no attack against the Senate. So what what uh uh responsibility I think uh as us being lawyers we go with the evidence.

[00:07:45]No, >> what what are the evidence? Prior to May 13, May 12 uh Monday, uh the Senate was at peace.

[00:07:54]>> Uh there was no nothing nothing happening except that of course there was a a Senate coup. A Senate coup happens any time and I mean Senator SP Frank can say that he had had many coups in the Senate during his time but nothing as violent as this.

[00:08:12]>> So I think uh what uh we have to remember is that the constitutional crisis or clash was brought about by the majority of the Senate. Why? because they brought in uh Senator Bau who is now a quote unquote fugitive under uh the ICC because even the OSG the DOJ already calls him or categorizes him as a fugitive which in fact uh was part of the decision of the Supreme Court why they did not allow a or did not impose a TTRO on the uh ICC warrant that uh or denied the petition of uh Senator Batau.

[00:08:54]So I think on that score now whether who is responsible then I think as I said as being lawyers we follow where the evidence leads and I think under investigation let's follow the evidence and let's see what the investigation will unfold.

[00:09:10]>> Okay. Thank you gentlemen. When we return we examine whether the shots fired inside the Senate may be justified under the law. You're watching Abugado.

[00:09:34]Welcome back to Abuada. Tonight we ask, who bears criminal responsibility for the May 13th Senate shootout or shoot me?

[00:09:43]>> Shoot me.

[00:09:45]>> But still with us, our former Senate President, Franklin Deron, and attorney Howard Kalaha.

[00:09:51]Well, potential charges are now being discussed related to the Senate shootout range from alarm and scandal to illegal discharge of firearms. Uh these are all under the revised penal code. Reckless imprudence, gray cursion, and even attempted homicide. Senator Don, under the revised penal code, but that I think I studied that a couple of years back.

[00:10:13]Where does principal criminal criminal rather liability potentially attach here and thus the firing of a warning shot materially changes the legal analysis?

[00:10:25]>> Well, you know, obviously uh there are uh consequences criminal criminal consequences uh in what had happened. There was a discharge of firearm alarm and scandal whatever you have. Yes.

[00:10:40]>> But I would like to look at it in another way. you know this General Alaska should resign and you know he has no business being there. Uh he caused this this embarrassment and uh uh the uh the surgeon at arms is one of the officers elected by the chamber. Mind you he's not appointed by the senate president. He is elected by the chamber.

[00:11:06]And I urge my former colleagues or my my my my the senators to reject him if he is presented by President Kaitano, Senate President Kaitano because what he did this is the first time in the history of the Senate. I was there for 24 years. We quarrel over a lot of things but we never discharge firearms. the first time that this has happened and there are talks that this was all stage balanced.

[00:11:32]I don't know you know uh uh for what I I you know I don't know in fact now you know uh uh there was a criticism why the senators were taking a meal and enjoying snack while all of this confusion was taking place. It is a bad commentary, a sad commentary on where we are politically and I do not know why we had we have gotten to this stage.

[00:12:04]>> Thank you so much, Senator Frank Gillon.

[00:12:06]Attorney Kala, both sides claimed lawful performance of duty. The Osah says it was protecting Senate premises. The NBI says its personnel were merely securing the GSIS compound. At what point does official duty stop becoming protection and start becoming criminal exposure?

[00:12:27]>> I think we have to look uh to carry with the circumstances. You're we're protecting Senate premises. But if you look at the CCTV, I mean the CCTV that has been shown, nobody was at the Senate premises except the OSA, except the Marines, except the PNP. The NBI is at the GSIS. Maybe the viewers can they should understand that actually the building is a GSAS building. One wing is just devoted to the Senate. So there is a common common area common let's say walkway >> and >> to to make the NBI at fault because they were at the GSIS is not correct. So how can you defend some something that they are not even doing? As as already said a while ago, the PNP and the DLG already declared there was no attack. So there was no um nothing to defend. So also when you discharge a firearm, there are requirements before you discharge a firearm. You just I mean you have to remember OSA is a civilian entity. NBI is a SEC is a uh uh government uh security force entity. So I think if you look at it on who is on the higher level, it is the security forces of the government which is the NBI. So it should be the NBI who should be um uh firing whatever shots if ever. But actually it is the OSA who who instigated all of this or who started all of this. So without that I think uh it is clear who really started the whole fiasco and as I would agree that uh I think the the sergeant at or the acting sergeant at arms should resign. That should have been his first order of business and not wait for any request for any resignation. And um in any discharge of firearm they should have surrendered the firearm immediately. They should also have surrendered the videos immediately, not wait for anything if they really are for cooperating and really defending whatever truth or constitutional legal basis they have.

[00:14:38]>> Ju just quickly partner, I understand that he was asked the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, they were all asked to surrender the firearms uh for testing, I would assume.

[00:14:47]>> Uh and he was invited to attend, but he did not show up and did not surrender his firearm. So clearly they're trying to hide something.

[00:14:54]>> Okay. So now we have an opportunity to openly discuss all the other related issues and we have 6 minutes per day. So just from my perspective, one thing that I noticed was the Department of Justice's proclamation that the warrant is now enforcable. The warrant of arrest is now enforceable after the Supreme Court failed to issue a temporary restraining order. What would that mean that the Senate had the right to then protect Senator Bau from being arrested within their premises when there was still no warrant? Because by the government saying that the DOJ saying the warrant of arrest is now enforcable.

[00:15:34]It was not enforcable before. Is that the position?

[00:15:38]>> The warrant of arrest has always been enforcable. The Supreme Court simply confirmed it. you know, the Supreme Court did not do anything except to confirm it by refusing to issue a a TTRO and therefore that that simply indicated that at least there is the primopas. The uh court said there is no clear right being violated that would entitle uh Bau to have uh TTRO and therefore they refused to issue the TTRO and it should now you know all doubt should have been remove should be removed. But Senate President Frank like the president also president Bombo Marcos also came out with a statement saying that he did not order the arrest of Senator Batau and that he ordered the MBI to stand down.

[00:16:33]>> Well, you know, I view it from the perspective that maybe that's what wrong with what's wrong with us in general.

[00:16:40]The feeling of impunity arises from the fact that nobody seems to obey the law.

[00:16:46]No, everybody tries to get away with the violation of the law. And that is why we have created a culture of impunity so that nobody follows the law today. And to me that is the reason why we have that that that scam of uh flood control projects. Eight the amounts are are beyond imagination because and that is why maybe the president should take a firmer stand and say we enforce it. This is the law. This is my duty, my constitutional duty to enforce the law. Let us serve the water.

[00:17:25]>> Uh, Senate President Frank and Attorney Howe, we've been hearing this term, partner, quote unquote protective custody.

[00:17:33]>> First of all, uh, what exactly does it mean? What do they mean that they are exercising a certain right of protective custody? One, who are they protecting?

[00:17:44]And number two, where does that particular right exist or it is it just a an imagination conjured by their own minds?

[00:17:53]>> Firstly, there is no such thing as protective cost of the under our laws.

[00:17:58]>> Okay.

[00:17:59]>> Undersided rules. It >> unders you correctly asked the question, who are we protect? Who they're protecting Bau from what?

[00:18:08]>> Yes.

[00:18:09]>> You know, that's a question to ask. uh who who who are you protecting BTO from?

[00:18:16]And number two, there is no such thing.

[00:18:19]There is no law which grants the Senate uh the power to provide protective custody. At most uh we sometimes uh provide protective custody to a witness in a legislative investigation. Yes.

[00:18:34]where there is a threat on the life of the witness because of what he or she may have testified in a Senate investigation and therefore a protective custody is extended in order to in order that this witness can continue testifying and assist the Senate in its duty of crafting policies. But I have not heard of a concept of protective custody on a on a senator who is the subject of a world of rest.

[00:19:05]>> Maybe maybe Mike know the protection that they are talking about is that I I think uh senator Frank also knows this because we all know that uh senators while in session cannot be uh accosted or uh or uh >> arrested. arrested. No, if they're if the it's 6 years and below. No. So maybe they're talking about that. But then again, that is a misconception again, a wrong implementation. Again, number one, >> it's very clear already that there is jurisdiction of the ICC. And the Supreme Court already said that they recognize jurisdiction for crimes uh happened before we even uh surrendered or withdrew from the ICC. When we say jurisdiction that includes ancillary processes and the ancillary processes include the arrest warrants.

[00:19:59]So the implementation of the arrest warrant is included in that jurisdiction. So that ancillary process is already recognized also by our law by recognizing international law, international committee. So we have to be following what we have uh what we have uh followed in our treaties also.

[00:20:19]So we cannot say that uh they are protecting anybody or protecting bau because uh the crimes against humanity is also beyond the six years.

[00:20:29]>> So again who are again the question is who or what are they protecting? They are not they don't want bau to go to the h which I think is not a proper decision for the senate to make because it is a legislative body. But didn't they pass Senate Resolution 44 which laid out requirements to avoid what they call um extraordinary rendition or something similar that happened to >> But the but the problem there Karen is that their resolution is contrary to law their resolution even they're questioning the the process that was done to President Duterte. President Duterte filed many cases at the H questioning that and they were dismissed by the HEG already. The the question of his arrest should not be a question of Philippine law but already of the ICC.

[00:21:23]So I think uh whatever they did whatever constitutional uh issue or uh conflict we have is brought about by the Senate by being a stubborn Senate instead of following the law and being a lawabiding Senate. And Howard, let me inject something. You know, we are here talking about justice for the over 6,000 who died out of this drug war during the totes time. So, here we are debating on the technicality whether it is a local court or an international court uh to determine the validity of the of the war.

[00:22:00]>> Yes. What we forget is that those uh who were killed did not think of who would issue the war of breast. They were killed and therefore we must give them justice. To me it is secondary. In the first place there is a strong legal basis to recognize the uh warrant issued by the ICC. But more importantly there is a process to provide justice to those helpless victims. We should not we are pursuing here substantial justice and we should not allow these technicalities to come in the way.

[00:22:36]>> Thank you so much attorneys. Up next, beyond the shooters themselves, what about those who may have enabled the confrontation? Did Senate protection become obstruction of justice? You're watching Abug.

[00:23:03]Welcome back and thanks for joining us.

[00:23:05]You're still watching Abugado. As tensions escalated, Senator Ronald Bau de la Rosa remained inside the Senate complex, which later entered lockdown before he disappeared from public view hours after the confrontation. Some now argue this amounted to obstruction of justice. Others insist the Senate merely exercise its constitutional independence.

[00:23:32]>> Senator Deron, where is the constitutional line between legitimate Senate protection and unlawful obstruction of law enforcement or judicial process? You know at speaking when I was there when there are incidents like this you call the police agencies you call the NBI you call the MB you know the the the OSA or the office surge of arms is that equipped to handle this kind of incident assuming that there was really an attack on this you know you call the law enforcement agents the NBI the PNP u as I would repeat you know and then now there is a dou doubt as to the uh authenticity of the attack on the Senate there the conclusion uh on the basis of the evidence uh that we see is that the Senate was not being attacked. So why was there a I don't know discharge of firearms?

[00:24:31]>> Uh it is exceeded whatever limits uh whatever boundaries there are of decency. M >> thank you so much Senator Jeron.

[00:24:42]>> Thank you Senator Deron. And now attorney Howy uh can parliamentary independence which of course uh this is something that's uh be protected by all legislative institutions uh or separation of powers uh can can can this be uh something that they can use as a legal shield uh so that they can be free from any sort of liability if proven that they knowingly facilitated the escape of a wanted individual. And how far in your view can command responsibility rise in a situation such as this?

[00:25:18]>> Well, number one, when you say I would agree that there is a obstruction of justice here, especially with uh uh Robin Hood uh Padilia and whoever else aided uh Senator Bau from they were caught on video from leaving. No, it is obvious that uh they evade I mean the word escape was even used by the by the wife of uh Senator Batau. So I think the the funny thing here is uh you know everybody knows that they escape but it's only senator Allan and the majority that does not believe that. So if you say command responsibility so already as stated by senator Frank who controls the senate who controls the building it is the senate president and and the and the majority at that time. No. And if you look at uh uh separation of powers, I as already said the role of the Senate or the justative at this point if they would like to protect any member of the Senate >> is just uh if the crime or the penalty is within 6 years. Uh they created this constitutional crisis by as you said giving steps giving finding the Senate resolution, giving requirements which are not in the law. their requirements are even contrary to the law. So if they should uh escape or take away constitutional crisis then they should follow the law. The best thing here is really to obey the law. I think uh senator Frank already knows that uh even in his time there were a lot of senators who were even arrested in the senate and they did not uh flinch any finger saying it is against the senate because it is following the law. So they have to let's say I think Senator D Lima, Senator Trianes, even Senator Enri was I think uh arrested and I think that the good way to do really is that to follow what the law states instead of saying uh and covering under the shield of the Senate which as I as I said is beyond the legislative power given to the Senate to protect its members. question by direct participation. So in this case conspiracy and the act of one is the act of all accessories.

[00:28:02]Agree Mike because uh while it was shooting the only thing I saw was so if you if you were really scared I don't think you will be eating or I don't >> who are we talking about I mean or if while they were shooting uh I wouldn't be playing chess Senator Senator Frank, I mean, put point blank, if you were if there was really a shooting, the first thing that Osah should do is to go to the senators, give them bulletproof vest, >> put them in a safe position instead of living there in the in the lounge and eating gatering. No, that's the first thing I mean is to secure the senators.

[00:28:54]Where were they? Did they secure the senators? They were there making their shots instead of securing the senators.

[00:29:00]that is their job and I think what is important is the the jurisdiction of this is the pass city pass city police so if there's anything it should be the Pasai city uh police and the proper security and law enforcement agencies that should be the one uh taking care of the investigation and all of these uh uh issues and not the Senate.

[00:29:22]>> Okay. So just right on time. We're now going to open this for another round of discussion and we have 6 minutes to do this. But uh since we've discussed obstruction of justice, what are the elements under the law for there to be liability for obstruction of justice under a presidential decree 1829?

[00:29:40]Because if you think about it though, if the president himself said that I did not order an arrest for Senator Bos, if you put yourself in his shoes, wouldn't that be the perfect time to also leave because you have that defense that there's really no warrant being served on me so I can leave the Senate premises?

[00:29:59]>> Well, well, put it this way, Karen. Uh, number one, it's clear there's a valid warrant. Okay, that that is I think that is solved already. Number two, is it enforceable under our laws? Um, if we go to Republic Act that uh allows uh the service of the ICC warrants, it says the executive may. It doesn't say the president, it says the executive. So meaning executive NBI, police or anything, any law enforcement agency. So when it says may, they may choose to follow it or not. No. or but I think uh it was prudent upon them let's say secretary John Vic and everything because I think it would not be advisable to storm the senate.

[00:30:44]>> Yeah.

[00:30:44]>> So but uh when you say may so it is imposible upon them whether the situation would allow a arrest. No that's why I think there were there preventing batau from entering. Now when he was there then of course a negotiation would would happen which was which was right because I wouldn't suggest any law enforcement to to storm the Senate and thirdly now that Batau is outside the Senate and without the TTRO I think uh the more he should be arrested at any time which already the DOJ already said that uh there would be already efforts to arrest even the NBI I heard that they would do some efforts to arrest so let it be Which is why I think I go back to my question whether there was really obstruction of justice that we can impute on Senator Robin Padilia for example because at that point even the DILG secretary was there and it seemed like the executive chose to exercise when we have that permissive language under Republic Act 9851 to just do may meaning they chose not to enforce the warrant. So for for Senator Robin like he could if he lent his car to Senator Batau there's really no liability because at that point enforce the warrant. Is that u a reasonable argument?

[00:32:02]>> Well I would I would not go that far because they they already knew that uh he is the that as I said there is a valid warrant whether it is uh infor whether it is executed by the uh law enforcement agencies that's another question. But they aided him to escape.

[00:32:21]That is the problem. And you have to remember uh they already said they already declared by Senate resolution that he is under protective custody of the Senate. Meaning Robin Padilia is the responsibility of the Senate. So if that is the case then they should abide by the laws. What did protective custody includes having him protecting him to leave the premises whether whether it is true or not that there there is such a such an animal as protective custody they took it upon themselves that they said there he is under protective custody meaning he is under our responsibility. So if that is the case then allowing him to escape uh clearly knowing that there is a valid warrant to me is an obstruction of justice. Senator Frank, as a former senator, liabilities senators, >> the the the fact is uh if it is shown that indeed Senator Padilia facilitated or even made possible the uh boss leaving the premises of the Senate, then he has some criminal liability to to answer uh on the matter of obstruction of justice at the very least.

[00:33:42]when he allowed this uh or when he facilitated the uh the the escape of of Batau uh but really this is embarrassing you know how glad I am that I'm no longer there you know >> and the and the penalties are high for obstruction of justice >> four to six years I think four four years to six years is that correct >> you know just to put it in perspective >> when I ran after filed the case against Senator Pony Andre, you know, he was decent enough. Okay, let's debate on the validity of the criminal charge. But first, he surrendered himself to the authorities and had himself in the custody.

[00:34:25]>> Laya dilemma. The only thing she said was don't arrest me here, go home, arrest me there.

[00:34:31]>> So that is why it was so and even in the case of Trillian. So all of this is in contrast to what we saw uh you know where at 2:30 in the morning you would surreptitiously leave the premises of the Senate when you were supposed to be given uh protective custody. I am sure that you know it they thought it was for his protection. If if you were the Senate President during this time, what would you have done or not do >> in terms of >> in terms of what happened?

[00:35:06]>> Well, you know, you could only advise Senator Dear Roa. If I were to advise him, >> yes, >> comply with the warrant of arrest, question the uh and and after you have submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of our police authorities, start to question the validity of the warrant because you are not giving up your right. It's but for an orderly society because I think you're wrong, I will do what I want to do.

[00:35:40]We we are we are living we are in a rule of law. The proper procedure is okay I will surrender. I will ask the court provide me relief. Do not allow them to bring me to to to uh until this issue is resolved which is a valid legal issue.

[00:35:58]>> Yeah. I have a practical question. So the difference with Senator Batau this time from the other senators that were arrested in the past was that it was a local warrant of arrest. So they would be detained here. But seeing what happened to President Rodrigo Duterte, you're going to be in a foreign country where you have to hire foreign lawyers which will be super expensive but also you're not familiar with that territory like what you have to do and you know just watching what happened to >> president former president Rodrigo Duterte where it's been a year and he's still yet to be tried. So it is a longer process, >> right?

[00:36:32]>> Would that um for example if you were in his shoes change your willingness to submit yourself? Yes, precisely. That's how an orderly society should proceed.

[00:36:44]First, you follow. Okay. So, there's a warrant, I will follow, but I will not give up my right to question the validity of the warrant. Uh and and and at that point, I think the Supreme Court will simply say there is a a clear uh basis for issuing a TTRO because you know, you can be brought out of our jurisdiction. And therefore what the Supreme Court said here is that there is no clear right of uh of of >> Bau that can be that should be protected by the TRO. But if he surrendered himself and have him and have himself in the custody of the authorities and question now the validity of the threatened transferred to the H. I think the Supreme Court will entertain that.

[00:37:33]But you know we lawyers know that you have to come to court with clean hands.

[00:37:38]So how can you ask for relief from the from from the courts when you yourself is violating the law?

[00:37:44]>> Mhm. And u attorney you don't think that there would be a repeat of last year where he would be chartered by private plane to the H.

[00:37:54]>> Well I think that is a that is a possibility. Um but I think the argument that uh it should be tried at the HEG is now getting stronger. Why? Because you see how the Senate shields its individual. So how can you have justice for the 6,000 or 30,000 when an institution clearly uh vested with the powers to follow the law is now breaking the law and making its own rules not following the rules of the land. So I think that is a bigger argument to even uh show and prove that indeed there is no justice to be taken here in the Philippines and that it should be tried outside the Philippines part question partner because I'm curious to ask going back to acting sergeant at arms aaska. Yes.

[00:38:46]Senate President instructions to secure Senator in the Senate premises. Would he still be liable assuming stage just create a diversion or whatever?

[00:39:04]This is theoretical.

[00:39:06]Would he still be >> liable? You should follow legal orders.

[00:39:09]You should not follow illegal orders. It should if you were asked to do a diversion that is an illegal acting acting acting sergeant at army acting.

[00:39:22]Well, so so far all the evidence it was in the headlines I think of the Philippine Star they said that all the evidence so far both testimonial and documentary evidence and the CCTV footage clearly shows that uh there was no attack in the Senate. that has been uh their determination thus far. But of course uh I think it is right to say that while that is the conclusion thus far, it is not yet a legal conclusion in the sense that that uh they still would have to prove it. They still would have to factually prove that this actually were uh because they had their own agenda.

[00:39:58]>> But if you look at it, what is the agenda? Who is there to gain?

[00:40:02]>> Uh you know it is in addition to obstruction of justice. I think this is also obstruction of the impeachment >> because impeachment proceeding especially if they control the majority as lawyers that you know if if things are let's say any objection any uh motion to produce subpoena or or evidence can be blocked. That's why I think uh part of this is really an obstruction of the part of the agenda is to an obstruction of the truth obstruction of the impeachment. That's another good topic partner for >> the near future. Yes. Thank you so much.

[00:40:40]>> Invite us again. Of course.

[00:40:42]>> Yes.

[00:40:44]>> When we return, closing reflections on our central question. Who truly bears criminal responsibility for the May 13th Senate shootout? This is Abug.

[00:41:08]Welcome back. You're still watching Abugado. Now, from warning shots and self-defense to obstruction, command responsibility, and constitutional independence. Tonight's discussion has exposed the legal complexity behind one of the most unprecedented, if I and if I may add, shameful incidents in the Senate today.

[00:41:31]>> At its core, the issue is no longer only about who fired a weapon, but whether our institutions remain faithful to the rule of law while protecting one of their own. We now ask for closing reflections. Senator Deron, your final statement.

[00:41:46]I will repeat what I said at the start.

[00:41:49]I was in public service for 34 years.

[00:41:52]The Senate has been there probably for 100 years. This is the first time that this kind of incident happened. There are talks about the same being stage managed. It is really embarrassing and uh I don't know if the senate senate can ever recover the prestige that it used to have during the time of clarto and all the legal giants in our in our history. This is embarrassing and uh the the Senate leadership should be very conscious of how to restore the confidence of the people in a Senate whose prestige has been really really muddled has been affected uh has deteriorated as a result of this episode.

[00:42:41]>> Thank you so much Senator Derlon.

[00:42:43]Attorney Howard your closing reflections. If we want to save the Senate as an institution because that is the one which is at the center point now really today. No number one I think I suggest that uh the Senate leadership really looks into itself. Do do they really have the lead the leadership for the Senate to regain its past glory? So maybe a new Senate leadership is is uh should be on the table. Number one.

[00:43:12]Number two, as already stated a while ago, the sergeant at the acting sergeant at arms in the acting senators, the acting sergeant-at-arms should already resign. He clearly he already said that he was the one who first uh made the shots fired and then um shot shoot me or attack me. So I think uh it is incumbent upon him to already resign. And to Senator Bau who is really at the center and maybe The most gentle man and the honorable thing for him to do is to follow similar senators who have warrants of arrest or have other problems before to be man enough >> to face the the charges and uh surrender to the authorities and this would finish all of these scenarios immediately. I think to save the Senate he should not hide but come face the music and face the charges given to him. You know partner before we say thank you to our distinguished guest perhaps this is a question that uh we should raise to all our listeners is this uh the criminal act of individuals or is what happened the shootout in the Senate evidence of a larger institutional decline that I think we should all look into and seriously address.

[00:44:37]>> Yeah. Final question over time because we were talking about Senate liability.

[00:44:43]What about executive liability? Is that also possible? Because um for example, CF General Tory who used to be PNP chief with all the concerned agencies and in this case could have been coordinated with the Senate as well orderly the first day that Senator Bto arrived.

[00:45:06]But also everyone was confused NBI because they said NBI but then they found several NBI agents also there GSI.

[00:45:15]Yes.

[00:45:18]PGMO in response to your query. Senator >> Karen, >> very simple. In our system of government, we have separation of powers. Each branch is uh given mandated to do a specific task. legislature to craft policies, executive to execute the policies and the judiciary to act as an arbitrary in case there are conflicts between these branches.

[00:45:50]>> In this particular case, maybe the executive branch should try enforcing the law.

[00:45:58]>> On on that note, but that's how we will end. Thank you so much to former Senate President Franklin Derlon and attorney Howard Kala for helping us navigate the legal and constitutional questions behind this unprecedented incident.

[00:46:12]>> Because in the end, criminal responsibility is not determined by rank, office or institution, but by whether power remain within the limits of the law. And in a democracy, the rule of law is not tested most not just in moments of order, but in moments of institutional crisis.

[00:46:33]>> This is good night.