Alan "The Translator" Cayetano

[mazdamazda]

Saw a glimpse of him "grilling" San Miguel yesterday... it goes something like this:

Cayetano: So what is your role in the ZTE deal if this is a government to government contract?

San Miguel: They need someone in the ground to translate the requirements of the Philippine government to something that the ZTE technical team can understand.

Cayetano: Do you speak Chinese?

San Miguel: No.

Cayetano: So why did they hire you as a "translator" if you can't speak Chinese? Why can't they just hire someone who speaks Chinese instead of paying you 0.5% of the whole contract to do that? (this was said with an air of righteous indignation)

San Miguel: As I've said... (ANC cuts the coverage abruptly). :rofl01:

===

Hinog sa pilit kasi.

[fourtheboys96]

very good senaytor!

[JiggeR671]

hahahha.... ganyan pala ka bobo yang senador na yan..sana wag nang manalo ulit sa election tong ungas na to..." Do you Speak Chinese" hahahha

[_Cathy_]

Maybe he was being sarcastic?

[4JGtootsie]

Alan is doing ok, being chairman of BRC he shows objectivity and not being subjective. He does his homework.

If San Miguel answered I can speak and understand Mandarin then mapapahiya talaga siya. Therefor he can translate both technical and language matters. Just my opinion.

[4wrider]

There was also a point raised by Joker Arroyo about the Blue Ribbon committee not applying its own internal rules that require all witnesses to submit an affidavit at least three days before the hearing. Mr. San Miguel did not submit any affidavit and the Senate was not apprised and therefore was surprised by his testimony.

Cayetano replied to Joker that the said rule should be applied "whenever possible". Joker did not question Cayetano anymore. However, in my opinion, Joker should have said that the general rule is to require the affidavit and that exemption should be properly supported with proof that such submission is "impossible". Joker should have asked Peter what made the submission of affidavit impossible.

These Senators continue to show the people that they follow the "rule of law" but it seems that they cannot and will not follow their internal rules.

[Altis6453]

The Senate's committees are generally free to follow or not to follow their internal rules as they see fit. That's what I know from jurisprudence. Note that even the rules of evidence are not strictly applied, otherwise, most of the testimony delivered by Joey De Venecia, Jun Lozada, Madriaga, et. al. would be thrown out for being hearsay evidence.

[Flagg]

Wala bang rules of procedure? Rules are there to be followed dapat diba?

[Altis6453]

Yes, but most of these rules are the parliamentary rules of order, or those rules that are adopted by a deliberative assembly which details the process of arriving at a decision. Typically, national, state, and other full-scale legislative assemblies have extensive internally written rules of order, whereas non-legislative bodies write and adopt a limited set of specific rules as the need arises.

I guess the rules that need to be strictly adhered to would be those used in legislative inquiries because there's a strong possibility that it can be abused by legislators.

[Flagg]

... Typically, national, state, and other full-scale legislative assemblies have extensive internally written rules of order, ...

I guess dito sa atin, our assemblies e walang rules. Hihihi...