Day 1: Impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte (3/4) — ABS-CBN News

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: The lady may proceed. Representative Luistro, you are recognized and you have 15 minutes for your opening remarks. [00:00:05] Speaker 2: We thank the court, Your Honor. [00:00:11] Speaker 3: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Honorable Chief Escudero, the Honorable Senate President, Honorable Wynne Gatchalian, sa atin pong mga kagalanggalang na Senator Judges, mga minamahal na kababayan, sa loob ng bulwagan o sa labas man, mga nakatutok sa telebisyon, sa cellphone o sa radyo, saang sulok man ang mundo, kayo naroon. Maraming Pilipino ang nagtatanong ngayon. Bakit mahalaga ang paglilitis na ito? Ano ang kaugnayan nito sa buhay ng ordinaryong Pilipino? Lubos po naming nauunawaan ang mga tanong na yan. Sa katunayan, may isang driver na nagtatanong. Paano sasapat ang kita sa pasada upang mapakain niya ang kanyang pamilya? May isang OFW na nagtatanong. Hanggang kailan? Kailangan lumayo upang mapaaral niya ang kanyang mga anak. May isang guro na nagtatanong. Paano pagkakasyahin ang kanyang sahod? Sa dami ng utang na hinuhulugan. May isang manggagawa na nagtatanong hanggang kailan magtitiis sa pansamantalang trabaho at kakarampot na sweldo. Sa unang tingin, maaaring sabihin na malayo sa buhay nila ang paglilitis na ito. Ngunit hindi. Hindi po. Sapagkat ang usapin ngayon ay patungkol sa isang bagay na pag-aari nilang lahat. Ang kanilang pera. Ang kanilang tiwala. Ang kanilang karapatan na maningil ng pananagutan mula sa mga pinuno na kanilang pinagkatiwalaan. Kapag ang isang empleyado ay nagkamali ng paggamit ng pera ng kumpanya, siya ay pinagpapaliwanag. Kapag ang isang barangay treasurer hindi may paliwanag ang nawawalang pondo, siya ay iniimbestigahan. Kapag ang isang prinsipal ay naglustay ng pera ng bayan, kahit liman libo lang yan, siya ay pinaparusahan. Natural lamang na magtanong ang sambayanan. Kung ang ordinaryong Pilipino ay pinapanagot, bakit hindi ang pinakamakapangyarihan na opisyal ng pamahalaan? Ito ang dahilan kung bakit mahalaga ang paglilitis na ito. Hindi upang usigil ang isang tao. Hindi upang maghiganti sa kalaban. Hindi upang manalos sa politika. Kundi upang sagutin ang isang tanong na napakahalaga sa kinabukasan ng ating Republika. May saysay pa ba ang pananagutan sa ating bansa? Sapagkat ang kasong ito ay higit at lampas sa sino mang opisyal. Higit at lampas sa anumang partido. Higit at lampas sa alinmang administrasyon. The framers of the Constitution understood that there may come a day when extraordinary power would be entrusted to extraordinary office. They also understood that there may come a day when trust would be broken. and that is why they gave the House of Representatives the power to impeach and the Senate the duty to judge. not to punish political opponents, not to settle political scores, but to protect the Republic itself. That is why the Constitution declares public office is a public trust. Ang kapangyarihan ay hindi pag-aari ng sino mang opisyal. Hiram lamang ito sa taong bayan. At ito ang dahilan kung bakit naririto tayo ngayon. Your Honors, the prosecution will present exactly what the Constitution requires. Evidence. Hindi chismis. Hindi haka-haka. Hindi propaganda. At lalong hindi SOCMED narrative. Evidence. Official records. Financial documents. Government reports. Video recording. Statements under oath. Independent findings. Of institutions created by law. Mga dokumento na hindi bumoboto. Mga records na walang partido. mga katotohanan na walang kulay pampolitika. Sa unang tingin, maaring magmukhang magkakahiwalay ang four articles of impeachment. Confidential fund. Unexplained wealth. Bribery and corruption. Threat against constitutional order. But these are not four separate stories. These are four chapters of the same story. Story about power exercised without accountability. Story about public trust betrayed. Story about public office that stopped answering to the public. On the first article of impeachment, the evidence will show that more than 612 million pesos in confidential fund entrusted to the office of the Vice President and the Department of Education were dispersed, transferred, and liquidated under circumstances that cannot withstand scrutiny. 612 million pesos. Hindi ito pera ng gobyerno. Pera ito ng sambayanan. Pera ng manggagawa. Pera ng magsasaka. Pera ng OFW. Pera ng guro. Pera ng bawat Pilipino na nagpabayad ng buwis at nagtitiwala na gagamitin ito ng tama. T-evidence will show liquidation reports supported by questionable documents. T-evidence will show acknowledgement receipts bearing names government records could not verify. Names that transformed accountability into a mackery. Pananagutan na naging kalukuhan. Names that insulted the intelligence of the Filipino people. Mary Grace Piatos, Milky Sikuya, Coco Villamin. On the second article of impeachment, the evidence will show financial transactions involving billions of pesos associated with the respondent and her husband. Billions. Hindi milyon, bilyon. At habang milyon-milyong Pilipino ang nagtratrabaho at nag-iipon buong buhay upang magkaroon ang sariling pahay, makapagpaaral ng mga anak, magkaroon kung ting siguridad para sa pamilya. Aba, bilyon-bilyong piso ang dumaan sa mga bank accounts na hindi may paliwanag ng maayos. this article is not about wealth. This is about accountability. This is about explanation. If wealth was lawfully acquired, where is the lawful explanation? if transactions were proper, where is the complete accounting? If numbers truly add up, then why do they refuse to reconcile? On the third article of impeachment, the evidence will show bribery, graft, and corruption through the distribution of cash payments and monetary gifts to officials under the supervision of the respondent. This article is not simply about envelopes. This is about institution. This is about whether loyalty was purchased rather than earned. Government cannot function if loyalty is purchased instead of earned. Kapag nabibili ang katapatan, nawawala ang integridad. At kapag nabibili ang opisyal, nabubudol ang bayan. Perhaps the greatest tragedy is where the conduct allegedly occurred. In the Department of Education, tama po sa TEP-8, the institution entrusted with teaching future generations honesty, responsibility, integrity. On the fourth article of impeachment, the evidence will show culpable violation of the Constitution, high crime, betrayal of public trust, through conduct that threatens constitutional order. Among all allegations before this court, none strives more directly at the heart of constitutional order than this one. ito na po ang pinakamatindi. And unlike in many cases, which depends upon competing accounts, this evidence comes substantially from the respondent's own recorded public statements. The court will see them. The court will hear them. The court will judge them. Public officials may disagree. We may criticize one another. They may compete fiercely for power. That is democracy. But democracy ends when violence begins. Sa kasaysayan ng ating republika, walang vice presidente na may kaibigan na hitman. Ngayon lang, walang vice presidente na nagpapapatay ng Pangulo. Ngayon lang, walang vice presidente na hantang magpapatay para lamang makaupo sa pwesto. ngayon lang. The constitution provides many means on how to resolve political conflict. Election, legislation, public debate, judicial review, and even impeachment. But it does not permit threats. It does not permit violence. It does not permit people entrusted with power to place themselves above constitutional restraints. Your honours, at the center of this case lies a simple question, perhaps the most important to any republic. and the people entrust power to a public official, does the public official remain accountable to the people or do the people become accountable to the public official? The constitution's answer is very clear. Power belongs to the people. Public office is merely borrowed, and every borrowed power carries with it the obligation to account for its use. If a barangay treasurer must account for public fund, then so must the vice president. If an ordinary public servant can be investigated, then so can the highest officials of the government. If ordinary citizen is expected to obey the rules, then surely those who govern them must obey them first. otherwise, what lessons do we teach our children? That there is law for the powerful and another for everyone else? That accountability exists only for the weak? That public office grants immunity against accountability? Your Honors, this is not the republic envisioned by the constitution. This is not the republic deserved by the Filipino people. Therefore, the prosecution asks only this. Look at the evidence. Listen to the witnesses. Examine the records. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Judge this case not by politics. Not by popularity. Not by fear. Not by loyalty. Judge this case by the constitution. Judge this case by the evidence. Years from [00:15:22] Speaker ?: from [00:15:22] Speaker 3: now. Future generations will not remember today's political alliances. They will not remember today's headlines. They will not remember today's slogans. what they will remember is when accountability was tested. The institutions of the republic stood firm. They will remember only one thing. What this court did when the constitution called. Future generations will not ask how powerful the respondent was. They will not ask how loud the political debate became. But they will ask one thing. When the constitution called did the republic answer. Your honours, this is that moment. This is the moment the constitution anticipated. This is the moment when accountability must mean exactly what exist. This is the moment when public office must truly remain a public trust. This is the moment when the republic must demonstrate that laws are applied equally to the powerful and the powerless alike. At matapos marinig ang mga saksi, matapos masuri ang mga dokumento, matapos matimbang lahat ng ebidensya. Ang prosecution ay naniniwala at naninindigan. Isa lamang ang maliwanag na konklusyon. Ang tiwalang ipinag galoob ay nilabad. Ang kapangyarihang ipinahiram ay inabuso. At ang konstitusyon mismo ang humihingi pananagutan. Amid the clarity of the mandate of the Constitution, political noise continues, political squabbles continues, political division continues. Please, let me conclude. Salos populi es suprema acts. The welfare of the people is the supreme law. Thank you, [00:18:00] Speaker ?: Your [00:18:00] Speaker 3: Honor. [00:18:01] Speaker 1: The opening remarks of the prosecution through the lead counsel is duly noted. Opening remarks for the respondent. Counsel for respondent has 15 minutes and we will give you the same latitude should we give. Counsel for the prosecution for additional three minutes should you so need it. You may proceed, Ma'am. Thank you, [00:18:23] Speaker ?: Your [00:18:23] Speaker 2: Honors, fellow Filipinos, good afternoon. As we begin today the impeachment trial of the vice president and in the days ahead, this court will undertake its constitutional task of receiving and weighing the party's evidence and ultimately to decide whether these pieces of evidence justify either a judgment of conviction or acquittal, guided only by its members' conscience and their solemn oath to do impartial justice. The present undertaking of this court therefore not only carries the weight of the constitution but also the imprint of our nation's history because the Filipino people have shown that they never forget. We as a nation never forget. But why is the act of remembering important? What does it matter to our history and to ordinary Filipinos? Because in this trial the prosecution proposes that we unseat the vice president elected to office by more than 32 million Filipino people. More than the number of votes cast for the sitting president and much greater than any of the votes secured by each of the members of the House of Representatives who now are here to prosecute her and seek to undo this people's choice. Sa makatwid, ang malinaw na layunin sa likod ng mga paratang na ito ay ang pagpapatalsik sa isang vice presidenteng inihalal ng mahigit 32 milyong Pilipino at bunga ng kanilang malayang pagpapasya. Whatever one's political persuasion is, the reality is that the prosecution now comes before this court to remove a vice president chosen by an overwhelming number of the electorate. You all have heard the prosecution say repeatedly that this is because they seek accountability, that the people have a right to hold their leaders accountable. This is not a matter of debate. Indeed, the people have a right to demand accountability from their leaders. What we have yet to hear from the prosecution however, is this. When the Constitution declared under Section 1, Article 11, that public office is a public trust and that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with at most responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives, the Constitution does not only speak to the Vice President, it also demands the same standards from the prosecutors. Being public officers themselves, the public prosecutors and the members of the House of Representatives are also held to the same constitutional standard. And so we must remember what history tells us. This is not the first time that members of the House of Representatives have attempted to remove the Vice President and in a manner not compliant with the Constitution. In a July 2025 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously declared in Duterte v. House of Representatives, GR numbers 278353 and 278359, that the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives were tainted with grave abuse of discretion, rendering the articles of impeachment that the House transmitted last year to the Senate as void abd initial. early this year, the Supreme Court unanimously denied with finality the House of Representatives motioned for reconsideration of that decision with a reminder that while impeachment is a powerful democratic process to call out corruption and grave abuse, impeachment can be abused. And that impeachment should never be abused to maintain the hegemonic dominance of greed by shaming those who occupy high government positions into preventing them from doing what they were sworn to do. But perhaps the most enduring reminder of the Supreme Court that we must not forget in the entire course of this trial is that in the words of the court, the rule of law that does justice is our lodestar. and that justice includes accountability. Justice includes fairness. Without fairness, there is abuse. This fairness is what our democracy is all about. It is in light of these reminders that we draw attention to certain fundamental legal principles that we think we must not forget throughout this trial. if we are to be true and honest to our proclaimed values such as the pursuit of accountability, justice, and integrity in our system of government, then we must remain possessed of an unyielding resolve to ensure that the trial and judgment in this case are done in accordance with the command of the Constitution, the majesty of the law, and the discipline required by the rules. Otherwise, those who stand in sanctimonious judgment of the vice president will send a clear message that the law can be bent when it suits the convenience of the powerful and that justice can be sacrificed at the altar of partisan interests. Mahalagang tandaan ang mahigpit na paalala ng ating Korte Suprema. Impeachment is not a purely political proceeding. It is primarily a legal, political, and constitutional mechanism. Ibig sabihin, kailangang na ayon sa batas at konstitusyon ang anumang proseso nito. according to the Constitution, it is the Senate that shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. This power is not shared. The Constitution gives no other body, department, tribunal, agency, or a mere committee of any of these institutions the power to try an impeachment case. The House merely initiates, the Senate tries. yet, we have seen the Committee on Justice conduct what its chairperson, the lead prosecutor in this case, described as a mini-trial, which, as we all had witnessed, became a vast phishing expedition of alleged evidence that were not even part of the impeachment complaints under its consideration, and which the respondent accused was made to answer. In that mini-trial, we saw how the purported pieces of evidence were curated to construct a narrative against the Vice President even before this case reaches trial. The articles of impeachment presented before this court as an exercise of the House's power to initiate impeachment cases are therefore, in sober truth, the product of an impermissible intrusion of clear constitutional boundaries. Over the course of the impeachment trial, the prosecution will attempt to convince this court and the court of public opinion that the allegations in the articles of impeachment are supported by materials they obtained during their mini-trial and that evidence exists to sustain a judgment of conviction. they will claim that the notices of suspension and disallowance issued by the COA and the COA decision denying the Vice President's appeal of that disallowance support their accusations with the release of that decision by the COA conveniently timed and coinciding with the committee hearings. They will claim that the certifications of the PSA confirm their allegation that recipients of the confidential funds do not exist even though they listed one Mary Grace dispiatos in their pretrial brief as among their witnesses or that the liquidation of the confidential funds in a span of 11 days was allegedly swift as to invite suspicion. The prosecution will assert that the supposed NBI findings of similar signatures across a number of acknowledgement receipts submitted to the COA are supportive of their conclusion that the disbursements of the confidential funds were irregular. What the prosecution avoided informing the public so far are these. That it was the then secretary of the Department of Budget and Management who issued a memorandum for the president through executive secretary Lucas Bersamin on October 18, 2022 recommending the approval of the office of the vice president's request for confidential funds. That the office of the president did in fact approve that recommendation of the DBM through a memorandum from the executive secretary dated November 28, 2022 and signed by the former executive secretary Lucas Bersamin by order of the president that on December 13, 2022, the DBM issued a special allotment order number CRO-BMB-C-22-001-2004 signed by former secretary Amena Pangandaman to cover the request of financial assistance subsidy and confidential funds of the OVP that notwithstanding the impending end of the fiscal year, the confidential funds were nonetheless released to the OVP on December 20, 2022 under this documented approval process. That the COA decision is far from being final. That there is a pending motion for reconsideration of that decision that, assuming arguendo, the COA denies that MR today or while this trial is ongoing as could plausibly happen under the circumstances, the respondent accused still has legal remedies available under the law and rules and can file a petition to question the validity of any forthcoming resolution of the COA on the MR under Rule 64 via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and more importantly that nothing in the Notice of Disallowance or COA decision states any findings of supposed misuse of confidential funds as confirmed by Attorney Gloria Camora when she was asked on this point during the committee hearing on April 14, 2026. Across all other articles, the prosecution will lay a landscape of what it deems to be their evidence in support of their speculations and conclusions. We are not strangers to all these accusations precisely because this was not the first time these narratives were foisted into the minds of the general public. We have heard the same tales and stories of these accusations since 2024 when the House conducted its Quad Com hearings and most recently the minor trial of its Committee on Justice. But what we must not forget amid all these accusations is the fundamental legal principle that the burden of proof never shifts. The burden of proof never shifts. He who accuses must prove his allegations with evidence that meets not only the degree of proof required but also meets the evidentiary standards of admissibility, credibility, relevance, materiality, and competence. We therefore should not lose sight of the core principle that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence on her behalf and she will be entitled to an acquittal. This is the law then. This is the law now. And the underlying principle for this burden of proof is simple. Under our constitution, every accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. An accused has in her favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. This also brings to fore the reality that in the words of the Supreme Court in People Versus Pagal, the individual citizen is but the speck of particle or molecule vis-a-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government and his only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need. sa madaling salita. Kinikilala ng ating saligang batas na sa bawat paglilitis ang isang individual ay nahaharap sa malalim at napakalaking makinarya ng buong Estado. at ang tanging sandigan lamang niya laban sa anumang pangaabuso ng kapangyarihan ay ang kanyang mga batayang karapatan sa ilalim ng ating konstitusyon. Kaya't mahalagang linawin na sa gitna ng pagtatangkang ikondisyon ang kaisipan ng mamamayang Pilipino at sa gitna ng walang humpay na komentaryo sa mga pampublikong espasyo wala pang maituturing na anumang ebidensya aligasyon na napapatunayan ng prosekusyon sa simpleng dahilan na ang bawat ebidensya ay kailangang dumaan muna sa paglilitis at pagsusuri ng korteng may tanging kapangyarihan sa ilalim ng ating saligang batas. Higit sa lahat, ang anumang paglilitis ay kailangang naayon sa itinatakda ng ating batas at konstitusyon at hindi lamang sa kagustuhan ng iilang may hawak ng kapatidensya langyarihan one might ask why is it important that we must not forget these basic principles the ruling of the supreme court tells us why the bill of rights applies to the entire impeachment process because in as much as our court recognizes that impeachment is a political process it reminds us that it is not a purely political process but a legal and constitutional mechanism thus if we are to uphold the rule of law serve justice and invoke the accountability mechanism then this court and we as a people must guarantee that all efforts to hold our leaders accountable must must be done right this we must not forget I thank the court and the public for the privilege of your time may God bless our country [00:34:31] Speaker 1: opening [00:34:33] Speaker ?: opening [00:34:33] Speaker 1: statement of the council correspondent julie noted and entered into the records the court will now proceed to dispose of some of the incidents that were brought up during the pre-trial conference as well as other pending matters and motions first on the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment the pre-trial order stated that the prosecution is a free hand to determine the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment however respondent will be similarly accorded the same right in so far as the presentation of their evidence and witnesses in chief is concerned may we now learn from the panel of prosecutors rather what will be the sequence of presentation of the articles of impeachment that they intend to pursue attorney Jokno is recognized you may proceed sir [00:35:37] Speaker 4: thank you your honor the first article we will be presenting will be article four on grave threats second will be confidential funds article one third bribery that is article three and the fourth is unexplained well your honors that's article four i'm sorry article two i stand corrected [00:36:06] Speaker 1: so the sequence of presentations shall be article four article one article three and then article two [00:36:15] Speaker 4: yes that is correct your honor [00:36:17] Speaker 1: so i presume that beginning tomorrow once we issue the subpoena for your first set of witnesses you shall begin with article four [00:36:26] Speaker 4: yes your honor [00:36:27] Speaker 1: again chair rules that the respondents have the same and equal privilege of presenting its case as it so desires when it's time to present its evidence in chief shall come what is the pleasure of the council for responded [00:36:41] Speaker 2: thank you your honor may i ask if the prosecution is ready to present its first witness today because the defense is ready today your juli [00:36:50] Speaker 1: noted we will get to that later next item in the [00:36:55] Speaker 4: agenda if your honor please i have just noticed that your honor had already directed the council for the defense not to propound questions to the prosecution this is already the second time that she is doing that she appears to be assuming or arrogating the powers of the court because as I understand the rules it's only the court that can propound questions to the councils your [00:37:20] Speaker 2: honor may comment [00:37:21] Speaker 1: the lady may comment [00:37:22] Speaker 2: yes your honor i take exception to that manifestation of the good council in fact the record would show and if we can run the transcript back my question was addressed to the presiding officer your honor [00:37:36] Speaker 1: let us move forward gentlemen and lady next item for us to dispense with the witness disclosure rule the prosecution proposed a three day witness disclosure rule the respondents proposed a five day witness disclosure rule but they understand the prosecution is amenable to the five day witness disclosure rule would that be correct representative we are [00:38:02] Speaker 4: amenable to the five day disclosure rule [00:38:04] Speaker 1: share therefore rules that in so far as disclosure to both to either party of a witness to be presented not mentioned in the pretrial order and or briefs of the parties shall be for five days this is subject also to the chair's reminder that at the end of every week that would be a Wednesday while we are on recess we will ask the party presenting their case in chief to enumerate the witnesses they intend to present for the following week with the corresponding motion for the request of issuance of subpoena to be submitted the day before or on Tuesday so that we can act on it before the last day of the week so that the subpoena can be properly issued in due course and in due time it's ordered on the examination of a witness by more than one counsel as propounded or proposed by the prosecution the rules of the Senate are clear article 15 of the rules on impeachment states witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them and then cross examined by one person on the other side court therefore rules that as a rule only one person shall present a witness however in the exigency of the delivery and administration of justice and under certain exceptions the court may allow more than one counsel to examine and propound questions to witness to cite an example just for the sake of the record if for example the panel of prosecutor disagrees with how the counsel for prosecutor is handling the case the panel of prosecutors or one of them can take over and that is but proper and should therefore be considered as an exemption to that rule and other similar exigencies will be allowed in order to afford the orderly administration of justice and of these proceedings so ordered in so far as the BIR box is concerned what is the pressure in so far as the BIR box is concerned this box was turned over to the Senate as part of the documents including the articles of impeachment however the court is not yet in custodia of this box given that there is no lawful order issued by the court for this box to be turned over to the Senate more so that it is not yet offered in evidence not even as of yet marked the chair therefore orders that the BIR box closed sealed and as it is received be sent back to the BIR or the Bureau of Internal Revenue without prejudice to any action that the court may isuans of subpoena and we shall await action if any by the BIR commissioner should that time come so ordered now insofar as the subpoena requested by the prosecution for the two NBI agents may request the clerk of court to kindly read the motion for the issuans of subpoena ad testificandum [00:41:29] Speaker 4: the [00:41:38] Speaker 5: prosecution the undersigned public prosecutors respectfully request the issuans of subpoenas ad testificandum directing the following witnesses to appear and testify before the Honorable Impeachment Court on July 6 July 7 and July 8 20 26 at 2 PM as their testimonies are material relevant and necessary to establish the allegations under Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment as well as matters necessarily incidental thereto and for purposes of the identification and authentication of other evidence before the impeachment court Number 1 Attorney Jeremy C Lotok Regional Director National Bureau of Investigation Number 2 John Mark Kalilung Senior Agent National Bureau of Investigation Respectfully Submitted Kansas City July 1 20 26 [00:42:24] Speaker 1: we are not in receipt of any reservation or objection on the part of the respondent however Chair would like to ask the prosecutors do you only request for a subpoena ad testificandum or a subpoena duces tecum as well [00:42:43] Speaker 4: if I understand the record your honor please to say subpoena both for ad testificandum and duces tecum [00:42:53] Speaker 1: the motion the motion that's why the chair is clarifying [00:43:01] Speaker 2: your honor [00:43:03] Speaker 4: I stand corrected if your honor please it's just for a testificandum [00:43:07] Speaker 2: if I may your honor just to set the presiding officer inquired or mentioned that the court is not in receipt of any objection from the respondent but just to set the record straight the respondent has not received any copy of the request for subpoena being mentioned today your honor [00:43:32] Speaker 4: what [00:43:37] Speaker 2: we received your honor was a manifestation containing the list of the witnesses of the prosecution for July 6 7 and 8 in your honor and so it would be impossible for the defense or the respondent to object or to even comment on a request that we were not served with any copy with [00:43:59] Speaker 1: the two witnesses against two subpoena has been requested by the prosecution or mentioned in the pretrial brief of the prosecution and was not commented on by the respondents in their pretrial brief but if you do have any objections now the court would be more than glad or reservations the court would be more than glad to hear it before ruling on the motion for the issuance of a subpoena at this [00:44:25] Speaker 2: point your honor that's fine we'll just place on record our objections as the testimonial evidence is [00:44:36] Speaker 1: be issued to the aforementioned two NBI agents contained in the motion filed by the council for the prosecutors although by nature subpoena is ex parte we would instruct chair would instruct the clerk of court to kindly upload all of the filings of all of the parties to the website for the information not only of the senator judges but also of the parties and their councils the chair earlier council for respondents said that witnesses for the succeeding week shall be manifested in open court on the last day of the trial in this case by Wednesday in so far as the next week next week's trial is concerned sorted now in so far as the request for subpoena for bank records and AMLC records chair recognizes the clerk of court to kindly read and spread into the records the request for the issuance of subpoena both I believe for the aforementioned documents the clerk of court may proceed [00:45:50] Speaker 5: request for issuance subpoena duces tecum the prosecution respectfully request the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to the branch manager of the following banks BPI Julia Vargas branch BPI Greenhills Elsa branch Philippine Savings Bank Wilson branch BDO Unibank Inc Davao CM Rector branch Metro Bank Davao Ecolan branch BDO Unibank Davao Rizal branch Security Bank Bikutan branch Lange Bank San Pedro branch Philippine Savings Bank Davao MADR branch requiring him or her or his or her authorized representative to submit to the clerk of the impeachment court on or before 24 June 2026 at 9am the certified true copies of all records documents books papers electronic data communications and information in the possession custody or control of the bank relating to any account deposit investment trust loan safety deposit or other financial transactions maintained open closed controlled beneficially owned or jointly held by Sarah Z. 30 and or Manassas R. Carpio whether individually jointly with each other jointly with any other person or through any authorized representative nominee attorney in fact or signatory for the period January 1 2007 to December 31 2025 including but not limited to number one records identifying account numbers account types know your customer documents such as but not limited to customer information forms and signature cards number two monthly bank statements average daily balances calendar year year and balances from January 1 2007 to December 31 2025 number three all account and transaction records ledgers and journals and similar instruments from January 1 2007 to December 31 2025 and number four all other relevant bank documents request for subpoena to the Anti-Money Laundering Council to Honorable L.E.M. Remolona Jr. Chairman AMLC through Attorney Ronel L.U. Benaventura Executive Director AMLC requiring him or her or his or her authorized representative to submit to the Clerk of the Impeachment Court on or before 24 June 2026 at 9am original or certified two copies of the following number one all reports of covert transactions and suspicious transactions filed by banks and all other financial institutions and covert persons required to submit covert transaction reports 10 suspicious transaction reports to the AMLC involving Sara Duterte Carpio and or Manases R. Carpio covering the period of 2006 to 2025 to 2025 number two any and all investigation reports or related reports or documents prepared by the AMLC suspicious transactions electronic copies including Microsoft Excel files database extracts or machine readable formats of AMLC CTRs and STRs for the period 2007 to 2025 involving Sara Duterte Carpio and or Manases R. Carpio respectfully submitted Kansas City for Pasay City June 18, 2026. [00:49:35] Speaker 2: Your Honor, may I comment? [00:49:36] Speaker 4: If Your Honor, please, before the defense makes a comment, just to obviate the proceedings and to facilitate the hearing today, if I may. The chair has [00:49:47] Speaker 1: not recognized anyone yet. [00:49:50] Speaker 4: May I be recognized, Your Honor? [00:50:01] Speaker 1: Yes, the counsel for prosecutor. [00:50:04] Speaker 4: If Your Honor, please, the subpoena request that was just read by the clerk of court pertains to a request that the prosecution filed in early June, where we had requested that the document specified be brought to the Honorable Court on June 24. Since that date has passed and no issue, no subpoena has been issued, we had refiled just this afternoon a subpoena reiterating the same request and in the interest of justice and to allow the defense to comment or if they want object to the request that we filed this afternoon. Perhaps if I may suggest if Your Honor, please, that we provide the copy to the defense, give them period of time to submit their opposition or objection and as well the same period of time to the prosecution to reply before the Honorable Court rules on this request. [00:51:00] Speaker 1: is the motion for subpoena and or ad testificandum that you filed today exactly the same as what you filed before? [00:51:13] Speaker 4: No, Your Honor. It contains the same documents that we had requested earlier, but there were some additional documents that were also mentioned in the request we filed this afternoon. [00:51:24] Speaker 1: So you asked for additional documents? Yes, Your Honor. What is counsel for respondents saying? [00:51:32] Speaker 2: Your Honor, before I give my comment on the request for subpoena, I thank the good counsel for offering to provide us a copy of the request for subpoena, but we would also ask that we be provided with the June 2026 copies of the request for subpoena as well as the new one that the counsel mentioned today, but just for the record, it would seem to me that the request for subpoena covers documents involving years from 2006 up to 2025, and again, just for the record, this would seem to violate the Duterte versus H.O.R. ruling, which very clearly states that the impeachment must be only for those actual omissions within the impeachable years and terms and office of the official. But nonetheless, Your Honor, just so we're able to fully ventilate whatever objections or comments that we may have on this request, and considering that for today and in the disclosure made by the prosecution, they will begin with Article 4, and all these documents seem to pertain to Article 2, then we will ask for 10 days to file our comment on these requests for subpoena, Your Honor. From today, [00:53:00] Speaker ?: Your Honor. [00:53:00] Speaker 1: Chair hereby directs that all motions for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum subpoena dosistecum filed by either parties be furnished to opposing party and or council before filing it before this court in order to provide full disclosure and fairness. But instead of five days council, Chair is giving both parties five days to submit their respective memoranda and or position insofar as today is concerned, we will afford the parties time to argue their position before the court so that the senator judges can hear your position in addition to your extended written memoranda insofar as this crucial issue of issuance of a subpoena dosistecum ad testificandum on certain bank records and AMLC records which the Chair will schedule giving ample notice to the parties in due time. Is that okay with both sides? [00:54:02] Speaker 2: Just for clarity, Your Honor. Yes, Council for responding. May I ask that the period if the period for the parties to submit or the respondent to submit its comment, her comment on the request for subpoena would be five days from today, Your Honor. [00:54:19] Speaker 1: From today, but you can submit it on Monday since it lands on a Saturday. [00:54:23] Speaker 2: Second, Your Honor, the presiding officer mentioned that we also must submit a memorandum or position paper on this, Your Honor. [00:54:35] Speaker 1: If you so desire or you simply can argue it in open court, but you may want to submit an extended written memorandum on the matter for the easy reading of the senator judges pertaining to this issue. [00:54:48] Speaker 2: Last, Your Honor, will the court also schedule an oral argument on the respective positions of the parties? [00:54:54] Speaker 1: Yes, Chair will do that. [00:54:56] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. And this would not be on Monday, Your Honor. [00:54:58] Speaker 1: No, that will not be on Monday. [00:55:00] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:55:01] Speaker 4: may I be allowed to make a counter manifestation, just a brief one with respect to the statement of the defense counsel regarding the application of the case of Duterte versus House of Representatives. The [00:55:16] Speaker 1: gentleman may proceed briefly. [00:55:19] Speaker 4: Your Honor, the decision and the resolution of the Supreme Court in that case did not say that any preterm evidence is inadmissible. There is no statement like that at all in the entire decision and the resolution. What the Supreme Court said and I quote was very simple. The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. All of the articles in this particular case pertain to impeachable acts committed by the vice president during her term as an impeachable officer including unexplained wealth. If I may just be allowed one minute to explain that. The unexplained wealth that is amassed prior to the term of a vice president is relevant and material to her being an impeachable officer because wealth of the magnitude of millions or billions of the vice president is very clear that when a local government official for example who later becomes a national official amasses hundreds of millions if not billions of pesos then that benefit continues today. Second if it's very clear that integrity is a continuing requirement of fitness for office. Thank you your honor. [00:57:04] Speaker 1: Julie noted and entered into the records [00:57:06] Speaker 2: just very briefly your honor much time of impeachment as a [00:57:13] Speaker 1: rejoinder to the statement and manifestation of representative Jovna briefly I think [00:57:20] Speaker 2: the good counsel has already stated precisely the reason for our position that we maintain our belief that the Duterte versus HOR ruling precludes any of these trawling incursion again on private records of so many individuals and so many entities when nothing in the articles of impeachment point to any specific allegations as to the relevancy of all these documents your honor but nonetheless we will include all our position and as well as our objections on the request made today with respect to these documents and what it would seem to the defense would be another 2.0 version of a fishing expedition may I also your honor just to clarify also the period given to us to comment on the request for subpoena may we ask that the five day period run from our receipt of the copies of the documents your honor [00:58:32] Speaker 1: we will make sure that the council for respondent will get that today [00:58:37] Speaker 2: thank you your honor [00:58:38] Speaker 1: the comments of both councils of the parties are duly noted and entered in the records chair would like to apologize to senator cayetano has been waiting for quite some time thank you for your patience and - Thank you. - What is your pleasure, sir?