VP SARA DUTERTE ON TRIAL! NAGLABAS NG BANK ACCOUNTS, MAKUKULONG NA?! — Senate Impeachment

[0:00] to proceed with the presentation of her case-in-chief. On February 28, 2012, what seems to be [0:09] an unregulated and unbridled exercise of statements that can be made before the public, [0:26] before the different fora platforms, to borrow the words of the lead prosecutor, [0:31] in respect of the relaxation of Rule 18. I'm sure that the court understands this. [0:40] The essence of the subjudicial rule really is not limited to the practical value of regulating the [0:49] proceeding. It actually goes into the integrity or maintaining the integrity of the proceedings. [0:55] That's why parties are generally prohibited from speaking about the merits of the case. [1:02] Before third parties, before the media, and outside the court because it runs or every statement runs the [1:09] risk of tainting the integrity of the proceedings. Now, I know and we understand that the justification for [1:18] not even a relaxation but what seems to be an entire abandonment of Rule 18 relating to the [1:28] prosecution's allegations and Article 1 confidential funds and Article 4 on grave threats and Article 3 [1:39] bribery. That seems to us we don't know and I find it difficult to understand how and how that ruling or [1:50] or abandonment of rule 18 even as this trial is still ongoing and while parties are still litigating this case [1:58] on the remaining article will contribute to maintaining the integrity of these proceedings. If at all, [2:04] we now have what seems to be a, what is this called in ordinary parlance, an FFA, a free-for-all type of [2:21] accusing the respondent anywhere and everywhere. So we actually object to the abandonment of Rule 18 if we are [2:33] to be true and faithful to the rational and wisdom of the subjudicial rule that not only permeates this [2:42] court, it permeates the entire judicial system because it is needed to maintain the integrity of the proceedings, [2:50] there should not be any single instance or occasion that this should be abandoned in the middle of trial [2:56] and right before or before the defense or respondent presents her case. And possibly the the the gravest [3:09] consequence that this now uh uh uh causes uh to this entire proceeding is this the abandonment of Rule 18 [3:20] and on the rule against uh subjudicial statements or out of court statements of the parties um uh complainants [3:26] and etc uh uh comes at the heel of the prosecution's um withdrawal of the articles of impeachment in which [3:37] they had already presented and completed their presentation and now the abandonment of Rule 18 binds both [3:47] parties both the prosecution and um the respondent. Now uh I know that the the the the court will say that [3:58] well uh the respondent's given the equal opportunity to do as she pleases um with respect to the [4:04] allegations she can say a lot of things she can you know use all the platforms in the words of uh the [4:11] lead prosecutor uh to avail of uh these platforms to present her evidence um through these platforms uh [4:20] I'm sorry your honor when the vice president was held to this formal proceeding and in this court [4:25] uh and uh honorable members of this court took their um um oath uh uh senators judges uh uh the respondent [4:33] really envisioned a fair and impartial um um proceeding geared only to one and one one and one [4:40] and and and that is what justice now whatever uh justice means for both sides or for each one of us [4:47] sa lahat ng mga nakikinig sa atin dito uh batay sa atin kanya kanyang paniniwala [4:52] sa tingin ko walang uh uh pag-iimbot na dapat natin tanggapin lang lahat ng prosesong [4:57] dapat na uh pagdadaanan ng pagbilitis na ito ay dapat na ayon din sa batas at sa garantiya [5:04] na binibigay ng ating konstitusyon. Now um we've heard also over and over again [5:11] uh expediency or the practicality of the proceedings that's why it would seem to me that's why [5:18] uh we're asking for a copy of the extended ruling that may clarify um your honor if by the extended [5:27] ruling is the respondent now explicitly being prohibited from um presenting um any evidence [5:33] without confirming um to this court whether or not um we intend to present anything um just so [5:39] mapanggan din ng ating taong bayan is the respondent now explicitly being prohibited from [5:45] presenting or from making decisions um with respect to her presentation of um her evidence in chief [5:53] by that extended ruling the effect of council of that ruling is that since um articles 1 3 and 4 [6:04] will not be adjudicated upon by the court nor put to a vote um it does not prevent the respondent [6:14] from making concomitant manifestations in regard to it but with respect to presenting evidence on the [6:22] withdrawn articles um based on the precedent in the corona ruling and the and the citations um quoted by [6:31] the court um it would serve no useful what purpose would it serve council can you kindly um enlighten [6:39] the members of the court so that we would also see um the respondent's point yes your honor i have [6:45] here the corona president there's a big big difference between the corona being cited as president and to [6:51] justify whatever prohibition that this court will apply on the respondent on how to proceed with the [6:57] presentation of her case in chief on february 28 2012 the lead prosecutor tupas manifested that they [7:04] will no longer be presenting evidence for five of the eight articles of impeachment and later on it was [7:09] clarified to be a withdrawal of those five articles the prosecution asked for time to file their foe or [7:16] formal offer of evidence and the following day the prosecution requested for um some days to file their [7:22] foe which was actually granted by the court and then the defense moved for and was granted [7:27] five days to file their comment upon receipt of the foe now um unlike in this case in the corona trial [7:35] the withdrawal was done before the prosecution presented any evidence on those articles here your [7:44] honor there is no doubt the prosecution took their time and completed their presentation and now [7:53] what we now want to impart to the public is this is her vice president she was tried held to the court [8:01] on alleged indictment charges upon articles for articles of impeachment and the prosecution consisting of [8:08] the public and prosecutors from the present um uh congress of the house of representatives and uh with the [8:18] addition of the panel for prosecution consisting of private prosecutors they did all this they presented [8:24] their evidence the court allowed them um time gave them opportunity gave them platform but now since they [8:33] withdrew your vice president can no longer speak or defend herself from those allegations um may we just [8:41] put on record that um just for the record your honor we find that not only a a bit unfair i would say [8:49] it's completely unfair but um whether this is something that the court will again consider on its own [8:58] uh or ruminate on it um perhaps uh today or um in the subsequent days uh or while the formal offer and the [9:07] comment of the respondent to the uh to that formal offer is pending um i think we we all have to ask [9:16] ourselves are we what is it that uh we all want from these proceedings fairness impartiality every [9:26] day we come here we pray we pray nananalangin tayo sa puong may kapal at sa lumikha sa ating lahat [9:39] bikyan nyo kami ng lahat ng lakas ng loob at tibay ng didib dib dib dib talas ng isip tatag ng loob para [9:53] tuktin ang aming tungkulin bilang mga public servants bilang mga hukom bilang mga partido bilang mga abogado [10:05] bigyan nyo kami ng panahon para sundin kung ano ang sinasabi sa ilalim ng ating saligang batas everyday [10:15] we do that ang sa amin lang ho yun hubang extended ruling ngayon um really allows or gives um that kind [10:27] of fairness to the vice president and to the respondent at hindi lang yun ano this is not a this is not a selfish [10:36] ask katulad na sinabi ko kanina whatever it is that we will do here this will set an example for [10:42] everyone when someone is held to the court his standard or her standard will be what he or she [10:52] had seen here now just um i'll be winding up um uh honorable luistro the defense has to be [11:05] raising a reconsideration um it's a manifestation council it's a manifestation and an objection [11:12] which the court intends to um objection make of note kindly proceed attorney sila kindly let her [11:18] finish honorable luistro yes your honor um and given what i had read for the record um one of the [11:24] affirmative defenses of the respondent is that um persecution so we will do um without preempting [11:33] our presentation and whatever it is whatever objection that the prosecution will have on our [11:40] presentation we will meet it when the time comes now attorney sila may ask um again for the information [11:49] of the court and enlightenment of the court as well again the court recalled the proposal of senator judge [11:58] bam na alternate na lang this would have been completely avoided if we allowed that but the [12:04] parties did not agree so after um the first article nag presenting defense um i withdraw man later on then [12:16] the objections being raised by the lead prosecutor would not have any basis correct but the court decided [12:24] to follow um the rules given that there was no agreement um between the parties so may the court ask [12:31] given the dropping the withdrawal of the articles is there an adjudicative purpose to allowing the [12:41] respondent to present evidence on the withdrawn articles or is um the basis the right to be heard on [12:52] those articles because there the prosecution was heard on those articles no um the question is is [12:59] there an adjudicative purpose um involving that uh without um going into the details of our presentation [13:09] your honor i think the uh most important adjudicative purpose of this trial really is to provide justice [13:18] and i will relate that to the second point that you had made um and this was also something that the [13:24] court had already um reminded the prosecution it says that the main duty of the prosecution is not really [13:32] to convict but to secure a just conviction and therefore if the conviction is unjust it should not pursue [13:41] that conviction now um all we're saying your honor is this why is it that it would seem now [13:52] that the defense is being limited to what he uh to what she can only do in terms of her presentation [14:03] um of her case in chief hindi naman po kami yung nag withdraw ng articles hindi rin naman po kami [14:12] yung nagdesisyon para sa prosecution nag gawin nila ito and with respect to the earlier suggestion of senator bam [14:20] um uh with due respect i don't think i don't see how that could have affected whatever happened today [14:30] because if we did that uh uh uh then or we didn't do it as uh we we really didn't uh uh [14:38] mababago ba noon yung ginawa ng prosecution that they completed presentation of their articles [14:47] on all three uh on the on articles uh uh one and uh four and the order the order yes because [15:00] you would have been heard the respondent would have been heard right after the presentation of an article [15:07] and should they decide to withdraw later on then both sides would have been heard already that's the [15:15] unfortunately again that's not what the rule says and unfortunately too the parties did not agree [15:21] with your permission attorney sheila senator judge bam bam's name was mentioned and alluded to so i'll [15:27] recognize him for a bit no on another point uh mr presiding officer uh nais ko lang pong [15:33] linawin no sa both parties kung ano ba yung pinag-uusapan natin so attorney sheila are you saying [15:42] that you wish that uh these articles are not dropped and that we uh continue as we had originally planned [15:51] or would you want to talk to your client first if whether she would prefer that these articles be [15:58] dropped because uh itong decision ni presiding officer by the way i'm gonna ask the same question [16:05] kay uh honorable jinky rin because nabanggit rin ni presiding officer na once matupad tong ruling [16:13] nato hindi na po with prejudice i had to clarify with my colleagues who are lawyers what that means [16:19] that means that once these are withdrawn di na to pwedeng ibalik ulit no the floor is yielded to the [16:25] fearless leader of um the honorable jokno the lead prosecutor um honorable louis tres recognized yes [16:33] ma'am your honor please please allow this representation to read this manifestation [16:41] um there is no written submission submitted manifestation correct me if i'm wrong we [16:45] understand your honor yes mr presiding officer the honorable senator judges four articles of impeachment [17:00] were filed against the respondent vice president today the prosecution respectfully manifest that it [17:13] will no longer pursue three of them it will stand on one and that is article two on unexplained wealth [17:32] let me explain in three parts first our decision to focus on what is necessary during pre-trial the [17:48] prosecution named numerous witnesses but did not present all of them on the article on threats we named 10 [18:01] witnesses and presented only three on the article on confidential funds we named 27 and presented only 11 [18:18] on the article on unexplained wealth we named 15 and presented 11 not counting [18:29] the individual bank the individual bank and insurance witnesses on the article on bribery we will present [18:40] none of the five witnesses we had named in all some 32 witnesses will no longer be called to the witness [18:53] stand this reflects the prosecution's considered decision to focus its case only on the witnesses [19:05] absolutely necessary for each article second the proceedings that will no longer be necessary [19:20] the prosecution has not yet made its formal offer of documentary evidence had we proceeded on all four [19:31] articles the impeachment court would have had to consider the evidence offered for each together with the [19:41] the corresponding objections and arguments by focusing on one article the matters requiring the impeachment courts consideration [19:54] are correspondingly narrowed with practical benefits for the senate the respondent and even the public third why one article is enough [20:12] the prosecution believes the prosecution believes it has presented sufficient evidence for article two to stand on its own [20:22] all info tayo dito we believe that evidence is substantial and compelling and warrants the respondent's removal from office for culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of public trust article two the article on unexplained wealth covers three matters [20:52] one unexplained wealth two violations of the salen and three prohibited business interest [21:04] we believe we have provided sufficient evidence on all these allegations in the prosecution's assessment [21:17] concentrating on this article is the most judicious course consistent with the evidence and our duty to the nation [21:30] therefore honorable senator judges beloved countrymen the prosecution formally manifest its withdrawal of and intention to no longer pursue [21:46] article one article one on confidential funds article three on bribery and article four on threats [21:57] we respectfully submit this manifestation to the honorable impeachment court for its consideration and appropriate action [22:10] we recall the impeachment trial of then chief justice renato corona in which the prosecution likewise withdrew certain articles [22:21] articles and proceeded only on the remaining ones that president recognized the prosecution's privilege to determine which articles to pursue and which to drop [22:36] this manifestation is made in that same spirit to exercise the prosecution's judgment on which charges to pursue as well as to [22:52] to safeguard the interests of the nation against betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the constitution [23:02] thank you mr presiding officer thank you honorable senator judges [23:07] the chair notes the manifestation of the lead prosecutor the honorable louis straw comment from um [23:13] attorney sheila the lead prosecute lead um council for the respondent rather thank you your honor [23:19] you may proceed man we thank the lead prosecutor for the calendar today in that um it now has given [23:27] formal notice that the prosecution after 38 days and um expenditure of government resources presenting all these [23:41] witnesses and uh so-called evidence and spending all our time coming to court to court is now formally [23:50] withdrawing um two of those articles um two of those articles for which they had presented evidence and we respect the [23:56] decision of the prosecution however whether this will affect how the defense plan to proceed with its [24:05] presentation of evidence is um something that um we must make clear it will not because the prosecution [24:16] cannot make decisions for the respondent and the defense in other words the prosecution cannot be allowed [24:25] to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested and [24:35] the court has already heard the prosecution's alleged evidence and the interpretations it laid on them and the public [24:43] has been already exposed to its allegations repeatedly through long interjections interpellations direct [24:53] examinations and the many conclusions and opinions that several of their witnesses have given before this [25:01] honorable court and therefore the accusations have already entered the consciousness of those who must [25:10] ultimately render judgment in other words the prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard [25:20] while the respondent would be or um would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence [25:29] contradicted and we feel and we believe that this is not um fairness and it is not in keeping with the [25:38] the guarantees of due process because the right to be heard is not merely satisfied by allowing the [25:46] respondent some room to present evidence on her behalf it necessarily includes a meaningful [25:55] opportunity to answer material accusations already publicly advanced against her especially in this case where those [26:05] allegations have been placed before the very tribunal that will decide this case and all for the entire country [26:15] and member of this nation um for their hearing pleasure and so we believe that um even as we respect the [26:27] prosecution's decision to withdraw uh the three articles or the two articles um today in addition to article [26:36] three or the bribery um article the prosecution nonetheless cannot unilaterally determine how the defense will [26:45] proceed or which accusations the judges may hear and which um accusations the respondent may be permitted to answer [26:55] it cannot make decisions for us and for the respondent because to allow this would be to confer upon the [27:03] the prosecution the extraordinary and impermissible power to control not only the presentation of its own case [27:15] but also the scope and substance of the defense case now if the withdrawal is intended to shorten the [27:23] proceedings of this case or of the respondent or of the presentation of the respondent's evidence so that [27:32] the court may immediately proceed to judgment then we believe that the resulting process would bear the [27:39] and mistake unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial a proceeding in which the fundamental balance [27:49] between accusation and defense has been so seriously compromised because again on record we have spent [27:57] government resources time time energy of this court and of all the all the participants in this trial [28:07] presenting so-called evidence and hearing testimonial evidence from the witnesses that the prosecution [28:16] had chosen to present before this honorable court and yet the defense would now appear to be forced [28:26] first to limit its presentation or its rebuttal to those evidence to whatever it is that the prosecution [28:35] had decided to retain in the articles of impeachment this we will never allow and while we recognize that [28:45] indeed the prosecution has that prerogative to withdraw articles in the articles of impeachment that they had [28:55] filed in fact we also recognized that the prosecution may in fact withdraw all articles of [29:04] impeachment but of course they would not do that but that prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the [29:12] power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent the authority to streamline or to achieve speed [29:26] in a trial is not the authority to diminish due process or to altogether disregard fundamental rules of [29:37] fairness and the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly [29:48] and just to set the record straight the lead prosecutor also mentioned the corona [29:53] impeachment trials of president for its decision to withdraw articles one and article four of [30:04] the articles of impeachment but just so it is clear before this honorable court as i'm sure [30:10] this court can confirm and verify from the senate records and so that [30:15] um [30:26] um [30:28] um [30:41] the court confirms um as an initial reaction that indeed it is not solely the prosecutor's call or [30:50] the prosecution's call to withdraw an article of impeachment but neither is it the respondent's call [30:57] to deny the same once articles of impeachment are filed before the court or any court for that any complaint [31:05] it is already subject to and under the jurisdiction and disposition of the court not by the party so [31:14] we take this manifestation as a motion that will be adopted um that will be acted upon by the court [31:22] taking into account the um manifestation which the court will take as an objection of the part of the um [31:29] respondent and hence um yes do i take it as an objection am i correct uh no your honor or a manifestation [31:38] against it um it's just a manifestation your honor um just to set the record straight that um however the [31:46] defense or the respondent would want to um proceed with its presentation is of um our own um decision [31:55] and that um of course um if that's the call of the prosecution to withdraw certain articles from [32:03] the articles of impeachment that is their lookout and that is their prerogative now whatever will be [32:08] the consequence of that decision will be or would be for them to bear alone and not for the respondent [32:16] so it's not an objection to the withdrawal of um uh those articles i'm just making a manifestation [32:23] on behalf of the defense and the respondent that we will proceed as we dim fit your honor even if [32:29] it's not an objection it's still subject to the court's decision and discretion as to how to act on the [32:36] motion of the prosecution for this reason the chair for the impeachment court for the public and even [32:46] for the respondent in this light your honor we wish to express our concern for the public who has expressed [32:56] their impatience considering that the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment are the [33:05] same allegations contained in the first impeachment back in 2024 during the 19th congress your honor [33:15] our beloved countryman has all the right to know witness and be informed of the conclusion of all [33:26] these impeachment processes which started as early as 2024 second your honor we express our concern [33:35] for the honorable impeachment court considering the equally important legislative functions that they [33:44] need to face as well that includes the regular bills pending before the senate and most importantly the [33:53] much anticipated budget hearing for general appropriations act of 2027 your honor ultimately your honor [34:05] during the presentation of evidence in chief by the prosecution the defense was likewise given their [34:13] opportunity to participate by way of their lengthy extensive engaging cross examination where they were able to [34:25] present their pieces of documents as well to the public and if the desire of the defense is to be able to share [34:38] all the pieces of evidence that they have there are a lot of platforms which they may consider your honor [34:45] if the intention only is to share this publicly ultimately your honor the prosecution wishes to put on record [34:54] that this decision that this decision that this decision to withdraw drop the three of four articles [35:03] retaining only article two unexplained wealth is being done after careful consideration of all the [35:13] interest of the parties involved thank you your honor um attorney sila is recognized yes your honor just uh [35:22] the response to the countermandation of the lead prosecutor um in the first place when the lead [35:31] prosecutor mentioned that if the respondent wants to be heard there are other platforms where we can [35:42] show and present our evidence i'm not sure if i heard that right um and to be frank it sounds um it is [35:50] ridiculous to even suggest to the respondent that hey after 38 days present namin ang lahat ng mga [36:03] tao na sa tingin namin ay kayang magbigay ng damage sa iyong reputasyon at kayang mag identify [36:11] ng mga dokumento na gusto namin marinig ng taong bayan pero ang gagawin namin sa bandang huli ay [36:19] we withdraw namin lahat ito at sasabihin na lamang namin na ito ay para sa taong bayan para may [36:27] kaunti namang kabilisan ang trial na ito but nonetheless may iba ka namang platform respondent [36:35] that um that um the prosecution seems um to want to impart before the public and before this honorable court it is [36:50] unbelievable and to be honest it is unacceptable platform for the respondent does the prosecution [36:59] really want the respondent na puta lang ang respondent sa facebook and where else matapos nilang [37:10] sirain ang vicepresidente sa harap ng publiko at ngayon ang sasabihin ay tutulungan ng taong bayan [37:26] para mamadali ang proseso sa tingin ko hindi natin kailangan ng higit pang patunay na something [37:38] really really wrong is going on here now binanggit rin ng lead prosecutor yung 2025 impeachment complaint [37:51] that the prosecution allegedly wants to help the public because you know they're interested [37:57] because the impeachment complaints against the vice president have been going on since 2025 in fact i [38:03] will probably need to correct that because the impeachment campaign against the vice president did [38:08] not only begin in 2025 when the supreme court junked and nullified void ab initio the impeachment [38:16] complaints um filed or the articles of impeachment that the 19th house of representative filed [38:24] baka nakakalimutan natin na itong dahilan kung bakit may disisyon ngayon na duterte versus hor kaya hindi ko rin [38:31] alam kung saan ang gagaling yung sugestyon na yan but uh let us be clear um whatever is the decision of the [38:42] prosecution uh on how to manage its case or how to secure its case and whether it thinks that um [38:51] its case can survive on one article alone at uh hindi na nila kailangan pa ng evidentia or to offer [38:59] evidence on articles one the confidential funds and article four on grave threats uh at yung article three on [39:08] bribery and corrupt corruption that's their call that's their look out and kagaya ng isang batayang [39:19] prinsipyo sa lahat ng hukuman um the prosecution's case must stand or fall on its own so kung pahihinain [39:32] ng pag-withdraw ng tatlong articles ang kaso na ito ng prosecution that's theirs to bur to to bear that's their burden [39:42] that's not the defense burden and the defense will proceed as it deems fit lalo na sa pagkakataong ito naggumugol [39:53] ang taong bayan ng 38 araw marahil marami sa kanilang hindi pa pumapasok sa kanilang sa kani kanilang [40:05] trabaho para masubaybayan ang paglilitis na ito at hindi lang yun gumugol tayo ng government resources [40:15] para sa trial na ito in fact um i would even go as far as say that um the withdrawal should already [40:24] be um one of the reasons why the articles of impeachment entire articles of impeachment should [40:30] be dismissed isang probaba kahapon narinig natin tinanong pa iyong daledge um forensic um financial [40:46] expert at uh pingilit na so saan mo ba uh may attribute to at ano binanggit niya confidential [40:57] funds and now we hear today the prosecution say that they're withdrawing the articles and allegations [41:05] doon sa confidential funds so yes it goes into the very right of the respondent to do process [41:11] at kung ano man ang gagawin ng hukuman ito sa paglilitis na ito hindi lang respondent ang [41:19] apektado dito dahil ano man ang mangyari sa hukuman na ito ito ang mensahe na ibinibigay [41:25] natin sa taong bayan ito ang ehemplo at modelo na sinasabi natin sa mamamayang [41:30] ang pilipino na pwede ito pwede itong gawin sa vicepresidente ninyo kaya pwede rin itong gawin [41:37] sa kahit kanino sa inyo kapag kayo ang naharap sa isang pagsasakdal hindi ho namin papayagan yan [41:45] um anything else before the court makes a um ruling on the um matter your honor please [41:58] the statement of the prosecution that the defense may consider other platforms [42:04] is actually taken from the regular practice of the respondent herself that instead of appearing in [42:12] person before the impeachment court she is stating a lot of things which have direct relation to the [42:20] trial during press con and it is from this light your honor that i suggested to the defense [42:28] there are other platforms which they may consider if the desire is only to publicly share the evidence [42:38] in support of the articles which are being trapped by the prosecution likewise your honor we take [42:45] exception to the statement of the defense that by withdrawing the case of the prosecution is being [42:53] weakened we absolutely uh oppose that statement your honor it has been repeatedly said that the [43:02] prosecution has four equally strong articles of impeachment and it is only because of the [43:10] consideration of what we believe is the best interest for all that we are retaining only one article [43:18] nonetheless your honor without sounding repetitive we are invoking the exclusive prerogative of the [43:25] prosecution to decide on matters of evidence to be presented and ultimately submitting to the [43:32] impeachment court on its exclusive power to try and decide impeachment cases thank you you know um [43:39] yes um senator judge allen yeah before the chair makes um yeah just i just want mr with the [43:47] permission just to clarify madam with your permission mr president and mr president officer when you say it's [43:56] the best interest of all can you clarify that are you talking about time that is one your honor including [44:03] the resources of the government and even the attention of the honorable senator judges considering the equally [44:11] important legislative matters which are pending before the senate not to mention your honor the upcoming [44:17] budget heating for 2027 is i say natin yon first of all time there's no limit in the constitution we can finish [44:26] this in january we can finish this in february we can take a break tomorrow and focus on the budget it is our [44:32] choice ko ako masusunod unahin natin yung budget my super el nino hindi pa tapos yung flood control [44:41] investigation and daming na tiwangwang na flood control hindi nagspend ang gobyerno we're in an [44:48] economic crisis not only because of our own doing but the whole world i mean all of us here all of us [44:53] here legislators share all this concern marami na nagsasabi na itong impeachment ay para sa mga [45:00] politisyan we know that's not true we know it's an accountability mechanism but we do know that the [45:06] budget next to divine intervention and prayer is the most important but i heard today we might even [45:13] change our schedule na naman para mauna yung impeachment so first of all time [45:18] it's in the best interest of everyone that there's fairness and we take our time there's no time [45:25] limit who is saying that we have to finish this by by november i want it finished but between finishing [45:33] it tapos may unfairness and finishing it na unahinto kaso sa budget mr presiding officer and mr senate [45:42] president you know i'd like to put on record i'm very uncomfortable with with that i think it will [45:47] be a disservice to the filipino people number two government resources it was the choice of the [45:52] prosecution you could have started with the ill-gotten wealth and stop there but you chose to spend 38 [46:01] days so kung baga sasuntukan sinuntok nyo na yung defense then sasabihin nyo to save time wag na kayong gumanti [46:10] and then sasabihin yung platform ang gagamitin so this is my second question can the court issue [46:16] supinas for their witnesses to attend their facebook live or press cons with all due respect your honor [46:24] that was in response to the statement of the defense that the evidence of the prosecution [46:29] have been seen by the public yes ma'am i understand but that's the problem you put all of your witness [46:36] here in court in a formal process before the filipino people and this is an impeachable officer there [46:47] are only a few impeachable officers in our constitution and this is not purely a judicial [46:52] process as we all know it's a political process also meaning it's not enough dito na ma-convict or [46:58] ma-acquit yung reputation ng tao yung certainty ng tao na siya guilty o hindi so for example so that's my [47:06] other question assuming we don't give the defense the opportunity to present dun sa tatlong articles [47:14] or dun sa dalawa nag present na is the prosecution willing that we acquit her on those two uh articles [47:23] will we will we categorize the dismissal as an acquittal we believe your honor that by the withdrawal [47:30] of the three articles by the prosecution it means that this will no longer be part of the impeachment trial [47:37] and therefore they are no longer proper subject matter of the verdict to be rendered by the [47:42] honorable impeachment so so we see the problem that was created no problem with the corona president [47:48] and with the article that you have not uh that you will not pursue because you did not present [47:54] evidence in this court every day using government resources getting people's attention but for the two [48:00] articles that you have already done your best and a lot of people agree with you a lot of people [48:07] disagree with you but to say sandali lang winidraw namin o matuwa na kayong defense wala na yan is that the [48:18] kind of democracy the kind of legal system the kind of justice that we want to give the the filipino [48:25] people can you imagine the president so kung galit ako sa koa and i i have barkada one third of congress [48:34] and i tell them don't worry i present lang natin yung evidence and then at the last minute [48:39] i withdraw na lang huwag na lang tayo mag formal offer and then uh sa media na lang or whatever sinira na [48:47] natin yung isang tao we already use government so i i don't know many of the senator judges here i'm not at [48:54] liberty to mention them but tama din naman sila if you you withdraw everything then wala rin naman [48:59] choice ang defense if they withdraw all four then we have to stop this impeachment wala time pag-uusapan [49:07] but but the reality is when you withdraw one or more but leave one all the accusations still stand there [49:17] especially the evidence that you've already already filed so i i do not know exactly how the presiding [49:24] officer is going to rule but may i put on record the following things so number one yeah we have to [49:30] finish this impeachment process with the basic element of fairness no of of really justice [49:37] kahit anong mangyari dito acquit or uh uh convict may matutuwa may magagalit but history will judge us [49:47] whether or not yung elementary uh fairness and due process number two priorities are priorities [49:54] priority dapat yung budget kung masasabay natin bakit hindi in the last few months pinagsabay natin session [50:03] budget impeachment but if we're gonna stop just for the sake na matapos tayong november we're gonna [50:09] suffer the budget is not just passing it no then third uh mr president uh honorable members of the [50:19] prosecution whatever the judgment it has to be acceptable by the filipino people and just because [50:24] there's no food just because there's no uh people power and just because you know the rating some of [50:31] us are doing well some of you are doing well uh just because last month these guys are doing well [50:38] this that doesn't mean natama yung tinatanim natin sa mga kabataan ngayon i just like you even during the [50:49] duterte administration the aquino administration we have to do what has to be done and we are in the moment and [50:55] there are certain things that we all believe has to be done but then 10 years later we look back so [51:01] like the corona impeachment it is what it is but we look back and also learn from that so i don't want [51:07] to look back 10 years from now and say na just so that matapos natin to ng november eto yung mga [51:12] ginawa namin kasi ang dami ng issues eh kasama yung threshold ang dami na dadagdagan pa ba natin ito by [51:21] that i am sorry mr senate president for taking this time but it was a surprise to us kasi we more or [51:27] less knew that you're gonna withdraw yung sa bribery ma'am but uh to withdraw the the other two you know it's [51:33] something that we have to all take in and at this point hindi naman nag nag uh object yung defense but [51:39] at this point to say to the defense you can or cannot do this medyo ma i i just have to put on [51:46] right mabigat po talaga thank you ma'am thank you um senator jajalan um um with your permission [51:53] senator jajalan before i recognize um attorney sila senator jajalan you mentioned something earlier [51:59] about dropping three keeping one um that's why it's unfair because the respondent cannot present [52:07] evidence anymore i agree with the presiding officer that uh the bribery case falls under the corona [52:15] precedent yes but so dumaan man sa house yan na sa media you didn't present the witnesses and the [52:22] documentary evidence here so when you withdraw it i i don't think we have any obligation to ask the [52:28] defense or to prohibit them from presenting defense right but for the two other articles that we've [52:34] spent the last 38 days presenting the evidence here so it's not only the legal consequences meaning [52:41] acquitted or or uh convicted but also the reputation of the vice president and her her right to a fair [52:50] hearing a fair trial by being able to present their own evidence so in theory in theory because this [52:57] has happened in the united states in several occasions given our research on the matter [53:03] what if the prosecution decides not this one clearly they're not um decides to drop all and completely [53:12] after presenting evidence completely withdraw all yeah that's where i agree with you and i just didn't [53:18] name you a while that's why i when you drop all no problem because basically she's acquitted and basically [53:27] both sides will go to we will go to the public opinion but the prosecution will lose because [53:33] i said back mo pa inimpeach ko either drop mo all now this is after they presented yes yes but if you [53:39] drop all that means suddenly you're not interested in prosecuting anymore that means there's something [53:45] happened that made you believe that now that person shouldn't be impeached but when you leave even one [53:53] so whether that's ten you withdrew nine that's seven you withdrew six you leave one then you're still [53:59] telling the public she's still not uh she should not spend a day more in office and should be impeached [54:06] so i agree with you mr presiding officer and with our colleagues here now ano pang i-represent [54:11] ng defense kung hindi naman present yung formal so hindi naman siya mako convict yes in terms of the legal [54:19] consequences of having a verdict of conviction but that's not our fault that's the fault of the [54:24] prosecution ayaw nila i-offer eh kung in-offer nila ngayon tapos na tayo today so but it cannot also be [54:31] the fault of the prosecution because you presented everything then stopped short and then withdrew it's [54:37] unfair to the prosecution and to the impeachable officer now to say na bahala na si batman bahala na kayo [54:42] sa social media mag defense that's why i asked the question will we will we issue a subpoena for [54:50] example if they want a hostile witness uh na taga sec halimbawa or taga uh whatever amla uh mag-a-appear [55:00] sa facebook will we issue a subpoena hindi pupunta ba yung mga um taga amla uh amlc kung kung sila [55:07] magprepress ko hindi mr president so that's the problem absolutely there's a problem i agree with [55:13] you kung lahat tinuloy o lahat winidraw wala tayong problema pero pagka and kung yung lahat ng [55:19] winidraw hindi ka pa nag present ng evidence wala din tayong problema pero ang problema natin nag present [55:24] ka na eh hanggang dulo eh then you're gonna insist that malakas pa rin yung case nyo on all four cases [55:32] kasi if they're not presenting now and they say na no no we admit she'll be acquitted in the two then then maybe i [55:38] i would ask the the defense or would it be acceptable if they admit na acquitted siya dun sa [55:45] dalawa why present pa kung acquitted pero kung sasabihin hindi lang namin iprepresent pero malakas ang [55:51] case namin pero kayo hindi kayo pwede mag present ng evidence hindi po talaga mag square uh mr presiding [55:58] officer noted attorney sheila and then the court will um make some statements um before the ruling yes your [56:08] honor thank you uh just very quick uh responses to what the lead prosecutor said she mentioned [56:16] that um the comment on the platforms or giving the respondent um the ability to present before any [56:23] platform she chooses um whatever it is that she wants ventilated before the public uh was taken out [56:30] of context or this was in response because she believes that the respondent had um fully done [56:37] that um previously we will no longer dignify that but i think we can all agree everyone in this room [56:43] can all agree that that is a very strange thing to hear from a public officer in a formal trial [56:51] suggesting to the very person that they had indicted and they had held to court to we will just stop we [57:00] will just withdraw after presenting everything that we think we have against you and then just go to [57:07] the platform i think that's very strange now if we go to section one article 11 and again [57:12] duterte versus h or the accountability mechanism does not only um apply to the respondent the court [57:22] has also already said and we don't even need to look far we just need to read section one article 11 the [57:30] accountability or the requirement of being accountable is demanded of every public officer [57:40] including the members of this honorable court and the public officers who are also members of the [57:47] prosecution panel now second before any suggestion uh or um any suggestion that um this is because the [58:00] impeachment proceeding is sui generis we'd like to just say that being sui simply means that this [58:09] proceeding or an impeachment proceeding is unique it is a class of its own but it is not the free pass [58:18] to entirely disregard the constitution the law and the rules in fact um we have a case gas corporation [58:27] versus in shong this is a 1979 case and i don't think anyone here will um disagree uh in that the court [58:35] said that the court already emphasized that while the standards of due process allows a certain latitude the [58:45] element of fairness should not be ignored here if uh by the withdrawal of um these three articles or two [58:56] additional articles from the prosecution is seen to have uh some effect on how the defense will decide or [59:04] how the respondent will decide to proceed with its presentation of um or evidence in chief then the [59:11] prosecution is mistaken again and for the record we will proceed as we team fit now any objections that [59:17] the prosecution will have on relevance materiality competence they should make that at the appropriate [59:24] time in accordance with um section 35 of rule 132 your honor and uh finally the just a quick reply to [59:35] uh what the lead prosecutor said about time that they don't want to waste anymore the time of this [59:41] court and the public but they already did when you say it's the best interest of all [59:49] can you clarify that are you talking about time exclusive power to try and decide impeachment cases thank [59:58] you know um yes um senator judge allen your honor before the chair makes um yeah just i just want [1:00:05] mr with the permission of attorney sheila just to clarify madam with your permission mr president and [1:00:14] mr president officer when you say it's the best interest of all can you clarify that are you talking [1:00:18] about time that is one your honor including the resources of the government and even the attention [1:00:26] of the honorable senator judges considering the equally important legislative matters which are pending [1:00:33] before the senate not to mention your honor the upcoming budget heating for 2027 is i say natin yon first [1:00:41] of all time there's no limit in the constitution we can finish this in january we can finish this in february [1:00:48] we can take a break tomorrow and focus on the budget it is our choice [1:00:52] if i will follow the next step we'll follow the budget we'll start with our budget [1:00:56] there's super el nino we'll start with flood control investigation [1:01:01] there's a lot of flood control control [1:01:04] we're not spending the government spending spending spending spending spending spending spending [1:01:07] we're in an economic crisis not only because of our own doing but the whole world [1:01:11] i mean all of us here all of us here legislators share all this concern [1:01:16] many people say that this impeachment is for politicians [1:01:20] we know that's not true we know it's an accountability mechanism but we do know that [1:01:26] the budget next to divine intervention and prayer is the most important but i heard today we might even [1:01:32] change our schedule na naman para mauna yung impeachment so first of all time it's in the best [1:01:39] interest of everyone that there's fairness and we take our time there's no time limit who is saying that [1:01:46] we have to finish this by by november i want it finished but between finishing it a tapos may [1:01:53] unfairness and finishing it na unahinto kaso sa budget mr presiding officer and mr senate president you [1:02:02] know i'd like to put on record i'm very uncomfortable with with that i think it will be a disservice to the [1:02:07] filipino people now number two government resources it was the choice of the prosecution you could have [1:02:14] started with the ill-gotten wealth and stop there but you chose to spend 38 days so kung baga sa suntukan [1:02:22] sinuntok nyo na yung defense then sasabihin nyo to save time wag na kayong gumanti and then sasabihin yung [1:02:30] platform ang gagamitin so this is my second question can the court issue subpoenas for their [1:02:38] witnesses to attend their facebook live or press cons with all due respect your honor that was in [1:02:44] response to the statement of the defense that the evidence of the prosecution have been seen by the [1:02:50] public yes yes ma'am i understand but that's the problem you put all of your witness here in court in a [1:02:58] formal process before the filipino people and this is an impeachable officer there are only a few [1:03:07] impeachable officers in our constitution and this is not purely a judicial process as we all know it's [1:03:13] a political process also meaning it's not enough dito na ma-convict or ma-acquit yung reputation ng tao [1:03:20] yung yung certainty ng tao na siya guilty o hindi so for example so that's my other question assuming we [1:03:28] don't give the defense the opportunity to present dun sa tatlong articles or dun sa dalawa nag present na [1:03:35] is the prosecution willing that we acquit her on those two uh articles will we will we categorize [1:03:44] the dismissal as an acquital we believe your honor that by the withdrawal of the three articles by the [1:03:51] prosecution it means that this will no longer be part of the impeachment trial and therefore they are no [1:03:57] longer proper subject matter of the verdict to be rendered by the honorable impeachment so so we see [1:04:03] the problem that was created no problem with the corona precedent and with the article that you have [1:04:09] not uh that you will not pursue because you did not present evidence in this court every day using [1:04:16] government resources getting people's attention but for the two articles that you have already done your [1:04:23] best and a lot of people agree with you a lot of people disagree with you but to say sandali lang [1:04:29] when you draw namin oh matuwa na kayong defense wala na yan is that the kind of democracy the kind of [1:04:40] legal system the kind of justice that we want to give the the filipino people can you imagine the [1:04:45] president so kung galit ako sa koa and i i have barkada one third of congress and i tell them don't [1:04:54] worry i present lang natin yung evidence and then at the last minute i withdraw na lang huwag na lang tayo [1:05:00] mag formal offer and then uh sa media na lang or whatever sinira na natin yung isang tao we already [1:05:09] use government so i i don't know many of the senator judges here i'm not at liberty to mention them but [1:05:15] tama din naman sila if you you withdraw everything then wala rin naman choice ang uh defense if they [1:05:21] withdrew all four then we have to stop this impeachment wala tayong pag-uusapan but but the [1:05:27] reality is when you withdraw one or more but leave one all the accusations still stand especially the [1:05:38] evidence that you've already already already filed so i i do not know exactly how the presiding officer is [1:05:44] going to rule but may i put on record the following things so number one yeah we have to finish this [1:05:50] impeachment process with the basic element of fairness no of of really justice kahit anong [1:05:57] mangyari dito acquit or uh uh convict may matutuwa may magagalit but history will judge us whether or [1:06:07] not yung elementary uh fairness and due process number two priorities are priorities priority dapat yung budget [1:06:16] uh kung masasabay natin bakit hindi in the last few months pinagsabay natin session budget [1:06:23] impeachment but if we're gonna stop just for the sake na matapos tayong uh november we're gonna suffer [1:06:30] the budget is not just passing it no then third uh mr president uh honorable members of the prosecution [1:06:39] whatever the judgment it has to be acceptable by the filipino people and just because there's no [1:06:44] food it just because there's no uh people power and just because you know the rating some of [1:06:51] us are doing well some of you are doing well uh just because last month these guys are doing well [1:06:57] this that doesn't mean na tama yung tinatanim natin sa mga kabataan ngayon di ba i just like you even [1:07:08] during the duterte administration the aquino administration we have to do what has to be done and we are in the [1:07:14] moment and there are certain things that we all believe has to be done but then 10 years later [1:07:19] we look back so like the corona impeachment it is what it is but we look back and also learn from [1:07:25] that so i don't want to look back 10 years from now and say na just so that matapos natin to [1:07:30] no november ito yung mga ginawa namin kasi ang dami ng issues eh kasama yung threshold and dami [1:07:37] na dadagdagan pa ba natin to by that i am sorry mr senate president for taking this time but it was a [1:07:44] surprise to us kasi we more or less knew that you're gonna withdraw yung sa bribery ma'am but uh to [1:07:50] withdraw the the other two you know it's something that we have to all take in and at this point hindi naman [1:07:56] nag nag uh po-object yung defense but at this point to say to the defense you can or cannot do this [1:08:03] medyo ma i i just have to put on right mabigat po talaga thank you ma'am thank you sir um senator [1:08:10] jajalan um um with your permission senator jajalan before i recognize um attorney silla senator jajalan you [1:08:17] mentioned something earlier about dropping three keeping one um that's why it's unfair because the [1:08:25] respondent cannot present evidence anymore i agree with the presiding officer that uh the bribery case [1:08:33] falls under the corona president yes but you didn't present the witnesses and the documentary [1:08:42] evidence here so when you withdraw it i i don't think we have any obligation to ask the defense or [1:08:48] to prohibit them from presenting defense right but for the two other articles that we've spent the last 38 [1:08:54] days presenting the evidence here so it's not only the legal consequences meaning acquitted or [1:09:02] or uh convicted but also the reputation of the vice president and her her right to a fair hearing a [1:09:10] fair trial by being able to present their own evidence so in theory in theory because this has [1:09:17] happened in the united states in several occasions given our research on the matter [1:09:22] what if the prosecution decides not this one clearly they're not um decides to drop all and completely [1:09:31] after presenting evidence completely withdraw all yeah that's where i agree with you and i just didn't [1:09:38] name you a while that's why i when you drop all no problem because basically she's acquitted and basically [1:09:46] both sides will go to we will go to the public opinion but the prosecution will lose because i said [1:09:52] but no point in pitch go either drop more all now this is after they presented yes yes but if you drop all [1:10:00] that means suddenly you're not interested in prosecuting anymore that means there's something happened that [1:10:07] made you believe that now that person shouldn't be impeached but when you leave even one so whether that's 10 you [1:10:14] withdrew nine that's seven you withdrew six you leave one then you're still telling the public she's still [1:10:20] not uh she should not spend a day more in office and should be impeached so i agree with you mr [1:10:27] presiding officer and with our colleagues here now ano pang i-represent ng defense kung hindi naman [1:10:32] present yung formal so hindi naman siya mako convict yes in terms of the legal consequences of having a [1:10:40] verdict of conviction but that's not our fault that's the fault of the prosecution ayaw nila i [1:10:45] offer it kung in offer nila ngayon tapos na tayo today so but it cannot also be the fault of the [1:10:51] prosecution because you presented everything then stopped short and then withdrew it's unfair to the [1:10:57] prosecution and to the impeachable officer now to say na bahala na si batman bahala na kayo sa press con [1:11:03] bahala na kayo sa social media mag defense that's why i asked the question will we will we issue a [1:11:09] supina for example if they want a hostile witness uh na taga sec halimbawa or taga uh whatever amla [1:11:19] uh mag-a-appear sa facebook will we issue a supina hindi pupunta ba yung mga am taga amla amlc kung [1:11:26] kung sila magprepress con hindi mr president so that's the problem actually it is a problem i agree with [1:11:32] you kung lahat tinuloy o lahat winidraw wala tayong problema pero pagka and kung yung lahat ng winidraw [1:11:39] hindi ka pa nagpresent ng evidence wala din tayong problema pero ang problema natin nagpresent [1:11:44] ka na eh until hanggang dulo eh then you're gonna insist that malakas pa rin yung case [1:11:50] nyo on all four cases kasi if they're not presenting now and they say na no no we admit she'll be [1:11:55] acquitted in the two then then maybe i would ask the the defense or would it be acceptable if they admit [1:12:03] na acquitted siya dun sa dalawa why present pa kung acquitted pero kung sasabihin hindi lang namin [1:12:09] iprepresent pero malakas ang case namin pero kayo hindi kayo pwede magpresent ng evidence hindi po talaga [1:12:15] mag square mr presiding officer noted attorney sheila and then the court will um make some statements um [1:12:24] um before the ruling yes your honor thank you uh just very quick uh responses to what the lead [1:12:33] prosecutor said she mentioned that um the comment on the platforms or giving the respondent um the [1:12:41] ability to present before any platform she chooses um whatever it is that she wants ventilated before the [1:12:47] public uh was taken out of context or this was in response because she believes that the respondent [1:12:55] had um fully done that um previously we will no longer dignify that but i think we can all agree [1:13:01] everyone in this room can all agree that that is a very strange thing to hear from a public officer [1:13:08] in a formal trial suggesting to the very person that they had indicted and they had held to court to [1:13:18] we will just stop we will just withdraw after presenting everything that um we think we have [1:13:24] against you and then just go to the platform i think that's very strange now if we go to section [1:13:29] one article 11 and again duterte versus h or the accountability mechanism does not only apply to the [1:13:38] respondent the court has also already said and we don't even need to look far we just need to read [1:13:47] section one article 11 the accountability or the requirement of being accountable is demanded of [1:13:56] every public officer including the members of this honorable court and the public officers [1:14:05] who are also members of the prosecution panel now second before any suggestion uh or [1:14:14] um any suggestion that um this is because the impeachment proceeding is sui generis we'd like [1:14:23] to just say that being sui simply means that this proceeding or an impeachment proceeding is unique [1:14:30] unique it is a class of its own but it is not the free pass to entirely disregard the constitution [1:14:42] the law and the rules in fact um we have a case gas corporation versus in shong this is a 1979 case and [1:14:50] i don't think anyone here will disagree uh in that the court said that the court already emphasized that while [1:14:59] the standards of due process allows um a certain latitude the element of fairness should not be [1:15:06] ignored here if uh by the withdrawal of um these three articles or two additional articles from the [1:15:17] prosecution is seen to have uh some effect on how the defense will decide or how the respondent will decide [1:15:26] to proceed with its presentation of um or evidence in chief then the prosecution is mistaken again and for [1:15:33] the record we will proceed as we team fit now any objections that the prosecution will have on [1:15:39] relevance materiality competence they should make that at the appropriate time in accordance with [1:15:46] section 35 of rule 132 your honor and uh finally the just a quick reply to uh what the lead [1:15:56] prosecutor said about time that they don't want to waste anymore the time of this court and the public [1:16:01] but they already did in fact they spent 38 days presenting all the evidence i think it's too late [1:16:12] to claim now that they do not want to waste the time of this court and the public because they're [1:16:18] done with the presentation of their evidence thank you your honor that's all um before the court makes a [1:16:28] ruling the court recalls the point raised by senator judge bam aquino on july 15 when he proposed the [1:16:43] tackling of the articles of impeachment alternately meaning to say article one prosecution and then [1:16:51] defense article two prosecution and then defense um given this current issue and quandary and situation we [1:17:02] find ourselves in um i hope future impeachment courts will look at that um particular situation and [1:17:13] decision and consider another um application of the rule because at that time um after hearing the parties [1:17:21] both um i believe um after hearing the parties the presiding officer said that is not in accordance with [1:17:29] the rules that's not how things are done perhaps in the future that's one of the practical applications of [1:17:39] this being a sui generis court um to avoid similar situations such as this one because um the [1:17:47] presiding officer sees the point of um senator judge allen as well as the point raised by the respective [1:17:54] councils for the parties but are nevertheless constrained to make a ruling based on precedent and based on um [1:18:04] available jurisprudence and basis um on the matter but again i hope future impeachment courts the young [1:18:11] members of the senate um senator judge panglin would consider this matter at the future time yes um what [1:18:21] is your pleasure sir yes before the court's ruling yes just to i recall i remember the uh uh point raised by [1:18:29] senator bam aquino then uh as early as july 15 and if i understand if i recall correctly the the presiding [1:18:38] officer ruled that uh that is an option provided both respondent uh councils for the prosecution and the [1:18:48] respondent would agree uh that was the collatelia that uh we would be open to allowing a amendment or at [1:18:59] least an adjustment to the procedure provided both uh councils for the respondent and councils and the [1:19:06] prosecutors would agree unfortunately uh there was no agreement and therefore we had to proceed as we [1:19:14] have proceeded just for the record again hindsight is always 20 20 and you have the benefit of history [1:19:20] to learn from it and not keep on reinventing the wheel so again for the record i hope the future [1:19:25] impeachment courts will take note of this um and hopefully learn from it the court will now make an [1:19:31] extended ruling um for the past 39 days the court has been preparing extensively with the help of [1:19:38] several lawyers as well as the clerk of court to make sure that um we know the same if not more than um [1:19:46] each party or both parties combined in the hope that we can dispatch with any issue that will be brought [1:19:53] upon before this court um so that we come up with various possibilities um in the course of the 39 day [1:20:00] trial um we have seen that sometimes come to pass that we meet them sometimes we are short of them [1:20:08] nevertheless the court is constrained to make a ruling given that it's last our last day before [1:20:12] we go and recess and given that the prosecution has rested allow the court to read for the records [1:20:17] for the record rather its extended ruling on the matter the court notes the prosecution's manifestation [1:20:27] that it has completed the presentation of its evidence in chief and is resting its case [1:20:33] in arresting its case the prosecution manifested that article 3 was withdrawn prior to the is [1:20:39] withdrawn rather prior to the presentation of evidence hence no further evidence shall be [1:20:45] presented in support thereof on the basis of its manifestation filed last october 6. furthermore the [1:20:53] prosecution formally withdraws as of today articles one and four as well following the conclusion of its [1:21:02] evidence in chief and confirms that it shall not rely upon any previously presented evidence to sustain [1:21:08] any of the aforementioned articles for the record the articles being withdrawn by the prosecution are [1:21:14] as follows article 1 misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds article 3 bribery and corruption [1:21:24] with the department of education article 4 assassination plot grave threats and inciting to sedition against the [1:21:31] government the prosecution having rested its case it is now the turn of the respondent to present her [1:21:38] evidence in chief subject to the court's resolution of the prosecution's formal offer of documentary and [1:21:43] object evidence and in accordance with the fixed schedule here under however before the defense is [1:21:50] required to proceed the court must act upon the prosecution's manifestation of withdrawal article 11 section [1:21:57] three six of the 1987 constitution vests in the senate the sole power to try and decide all cases of [1:22:05] impeachment as such once the articles of impeachment have been transmitted and the senate has acquired [1:22:11] jurisdiction over them their disposition cannot rest solely upon the unilateral discretion of the prosecution [1:22:19] by suppletory analogy crespo versus mogul gr number five three three three seven three teaches that [1:22:28] once a charge has been formally lodged before a competent tribunal any disposition of the case as it's [1:22:35] as such as such as its dismissal or conviction or acquittal of the accused rests on the sound discretion [1:22:43] of the court this is also consistent with the u.s impeachment cases of judge george w english and judge [1:22:50] samuel b kent accordingly the prosecution's manifestation does not by itself extinguish [1:22:57] articles one three and four at most it presents a request for approval for the approval of this court [1:23:05] in acting upon the request the court exercises its independent constitutional authority promotes judicial [1:23:13] economy and avoids requiring the respondent to extend time and resources defending charges that the [1:23:19] prosecution is formally abandoned abandoned consistent with the respondent and the people's right to speed [1:23:25] the disposition of cases under article 3 section 16 of the constitution given the foregoing the court [1:23:33] accepts and confirms the prosecution's manifestation articles 1 3 and 4 from this point forward are deemed [1:23:40] withdrawn subject to the following rulings and orders that this court hereby issues as follows number one articles [1:23:50] one and four are deemed withdrawn with prejudice as against the respondent congress must never be light [1:23:58] handed or nonchalant in initiating and prosecuting articles of impeachment impeachment is not a charge that [1:24:06] may simply be filed pursued through the presentation of evidence and thereafter withdrawn without the [1:24:13] respondent's consent it is it is a grave constitutional process that affects not only the respondent but also the [1:24:20] the stability of government the orderly conduct of public affairs public confidence in constitutional institutions and the [1:24:27] nation as a whole not to mention the expenses associated and related to this process it likewise demands substantial time and [1:24:36] resources from the impeachment court the parties and the public as well here the [1:24:41] prosecution has been afforded the opportunity to present its case and has consumed the court's time and institutional resources in doing so having elected to [1:24:50] withdraw the articles after arresting its case the prosecution must therefore accept the legal consequences [1:24:57] of that withdrawal the house of representatives may not treat the impeachment process as a mere opportunity to file [1:25:05] withdraw and subsequently revive substantially the same constitutional accusations at will as explained in [1:25:14] bala areas versus espanto gr number 24 78 44 an action by the court with prejudice is treated as an adjudication on the [1:25:23] marriage that finally disposes of the controversy and bars a later action involving the same cause therefore the effect of a withdrawal with [1:25:33] prejudice means that articles one and four may not be revived in this trial refiled reprosecuted or transmitted anew [1:25:44] against the same respondent during the same term and in this 20th congress when founded upon the same [1:25:52] allegations the same acts or omissions the same ultimate factual transaction and the same constitutional [1:25:59] accusation regardless of any change in the wording caption theory arrangement of specifications or composition of the [1:26:07] prosecutorial panel the test that the court will apply is substantive and not merely verbal despite changes [1:26:15] in phrasing or legal characterization a later article is the same if it seeks the removal of the respondent [1:26:21] during the same term for the same operative conduct and ultimate constitutional charge during this 20th congress [1:26:30] this bar applies only to impeachment as a process of constitutional removal however [1:26:36] it does not grant immunity nor does it constitute double jeopardy against the prosecution for any [1:26:42] underlying conduct it does not bar criminal civil administrative electoral disciplinary or other professional [1:26:50] proceedings in accordance with law each of which is governed by its own jurisdictional substantive [1:26:56] evidentiary and procedural rules this distinction is consistent with the strada v desierto gr number 1467 10-15 [1:27:07] where the court rejected an attempt [1:27:09] to use an aborted impeachment proceeding as a bar to subsequent criminal prosecution number two article 3 however as stated above is deemed withdrawn without prejudice as against the respondent article 3 stands on a [1:27:26] dip on a materially different procedural footing the prosecution did not present or reduce evidence under this article no evidentiary case under article 3 was submitted to this court upon which a [1:27:37] finding or verdict could have been sustained or verdict could have been sustained or verdict could have been sustained and the respondent was never placed in the position of having to answer a completed evidentiary presentation under that article [1:27:48] the distinction is deliberate articles 1 and 4 were brought through a completed prosecutorial evidentiary presentation before being withdrawn article 3 was never was was withdrawn before the prosecution presented evidence [1:28:03] capable of capable capable of sustaining a finding a finding against the respondent the court therefore accords to articles 1 and 4 finality for the respondent's present term as vice president while limiting the procedural effect of the withdrawal of article 3 to this trial alone provided however that article 3 may not be revived in this trial until its conclusion [1:28:25] number three articles 1 3 and 4 shall not be submitted for a vote or verdict by this court anymore as there is no longer any charge under articles 1 3 and 4 for adjudication in this trial those articles shall not be submitted to the members of the court for a vote or for a verdict of conviction or acquittal [1:28:50] this treatment follows the president established during the 2012 impeachment trial of chief justice renato corona when the prosecution abandoned five articles the defense was not required to present evidence upon them [1:29:02] and the withdrawn articles were not submitted to the senator judges for a vote on march 12 2012 acting upon the defense's motion to dismiss [1:29:10] the prosecution's manifestation of withdrawal the presiding officer stated quote regarding the motion of the defense to formally dismiss articles 1 [1:29:21] 4 4 5 6 and 8 of the articles of impeachment the impeachment court in a caucus decided not to entertain an act on the motion to dismiss with the clear understanding however that no evidence from both prosecution and defense panels will be received by the impeachment court or articles 1 4 5 6 and 8 the presiding officer also then stated the corresponding consequence of that ruling furthermore the members of the impeachment court will not render any vote on those articles 1 [1:29:52] and no verdicts and no verdict of the impeachment court will be rendered on the same accordingly [1:29:58] accordingly articles 1 3 and 4 shall no longer form part of the articles of impeachment to be decided in this trial and shall not be submitted to the members of the court for a vote or for a verdict of conviction or acquittal [1:30:14] number 4 respondent need not present evidence in defense of articles 1 3 and 4 because articles 1 3 and 4 [1:30:25] will no longer be submitted for a vote or will no longer be submitted for a vote or verdict the respondent need not present evidence in chief to controvert or defend against these withdrawn articles there is [1:30:34] consequently no surviving charge under articles 1 3 and 4 requiring an evidentiary defense requiring defense witnesses documents or exhibits solely to answer an article that will not be adjudicated upon by this court would necessarily impose burden and litigation risk without the remaining adjudication [1:30:52] purpose this conclusion is consistent with the court's authority to control and manage the proceedings before it rule five of the rules of procedure and impeachment trials authorizes the court to issue orders necessary to carry the proceedings into effect and essential to the ends of justice while rule six permits the supplicatory application of the rules of court specifically rule one three five section five g which recognizes the inherent power of the court to control the court and [1:31:12] processes and orders so that they may conform with law and justice santa in santa lucia realty versus city of passing gr number 1668 38 the supreme court recognized the inherent authority of a tribunal to control the disposition of matters on its docket with the [1:31:44] economy of the economy of time and effort for the court counsel and litigants in consideration consistent with that authority and with the rule that evidence must be relevant to the fact and issue on the rule one to eight no useful adjudicative purpose would be served by receiving evidence directed solely against charges that have already been withdrawn the respondents presentation of evidence in chief shall therefore address article two the respondent may however identify adopt and rely upon evidence [1:32:15] already adduced already adduced and forming part of the official record without needlessly presenting the same evidence and new provided that each tie item is relevant and otherwise admissible with respect to article two number five the subjudicial rules shall no longer cover the withdrawn articles namely article one three and four rule eighteen requires the parties their counsel and witnesses and other persons covered by the rules to refrain from making public comments [1:32:48] of matters of matters pending adjudication before the impeachment court upon the effectivity of this order the separate merits of articles one three and four are no longer pending for adjudication accordingly the prosecutors the respondent the respective counsels and witnesses may publicly address explain and respond to any matter contained in those withdrawn articles [1:33:19] to the presentation to the presentation of evidence before the court may therefore answer them present her account defend her conduct reputation in the course of public discourse this freedom extends only to articles one three and four however and does not authorize the covered parties by rule eighteen to make any public comment or disclosure concerning the merits of the retained article two which remains pending before this court [1:33:50] and does not authorize the unrestricted disclosure or dissemination of evidence presented in connection with them withdrawal does not declassify evidence remove an existing seal or protective order wave any privilege or extinguish duties arising from privacy statutory secrecy witness protection legal ethics confidentiality undertakings [1:34:21] the draft circulated published published or uploaded or transmitted except as may be expressly permitted by law public statements concerning the withdrawn articles must therefore be made without disclosing protected evidence if any there be in accordance with existing laws and regulations number six preservation public access and control distribution of official record all pleadings manifestations motions transcripts stenographic notes marked documents admitted exhibits [1:34:52] excluded or rejected or rejected exhibits formal offers objections resolutions and rulings relating to articles one three and four shall remain in the official rollo and in the custody of the court no such material shall be removed or expunged merely because the article to which it originally related has been withdrawn once a document or exhibit has been received submitted or otherwise made part of the proceedings its preservation serves the integrity completeness [1:35:23] it's transparent