De Lima, Poa clash over opening statement

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Mr. Senate President, Mr. Presiding Officer, Honorable Senator Judges, mga kababayan, magandang umaga po. Sa ating pagbabudget para sa pamilya, dahil hindi naman only ang pera, masinop ang ating paggasta sa talagang kailangan at kapakipaginabang natin nilalaan. Ganyan din dapat sa pondo ng bayan. Sa yugtong ito ng paglilitis, pag-uusapan natin ang confidential funds. Ito ang budget para sa mga sensitibo at surveillance-related activities upang suportahan ang mandato ng mga civilian agencies. That a budget is intended for confidential operations does not mean that the conduct of the officials involved in the handling of people's money is exempted from the demands of transparency, scrutiny, and accountability. Public office is a public trust. Yan ang sabi ng konstitusyon. Sakot nito ang lahat na nasa gobyerno. At ang utos na yan ay hindi pwedeng balawalain dahil confidential lang o confidential ang pondo. Ang confidentiality ay para protektahan ang lehitimong operasyon at informant. hindi ito pahintulot para mag-imvento ng pangalan at dokumento. Hindi ito palusot para ibulsa ang pera. Kung confidential ang pondo, lalo pa ngang mataas ang pananagutang kaagibat nito. The Constitution entrusts this court with a solemn duty to determine whether the respondent vice president committed culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust. The evidence will show that she did. This case, Article 1, is about $612.5 million in confidential funds entrusted to VP Sara Duterte through the Office of the President and the Department of Education. This is not about one missing receipt. This is not about a clerical error or accounting mistake. The evidence will reveal a pattern, a systemic course of conduct that, taken as a whole, demonstrates graft and corruption. and betrayal of public trust. [00:02:31] Speaker 2: With the permission of the Honorable Dilemma. Yes, Council for Respondent. [00:02:37] Speaker 3: Again, Your Honors, I think we have to object to the statements being made by the Honorable Dilemma with all due respect, of course. Your Honors, they can do that through the offer of their evidence, Your Honor. [00:02:49] Speaker 2: Chair will instruct the Honorable Dilemma to kindly limit her statements. I was listening intently in the beginning. It was okay, Honorable Dilemma. but later on, you did make conclusions of law already, which are the chair orders to be stricken from the record. You may wind up, Honorable Dilemma, but kindly avoid conclusions of fact and law. Your Honors, please. [00:03:10] Speaker 3: If I may just be given just a few seconds. Your Honors, Your Honors, ang naging problema natin nung huling pagkakataon na pinayagan natin yung ganitong statement at nasabi na nga ng presiding officer is kahit naman i-strike off the record natin. Eh narinig na po at nasabi na. So to allow Your Honors, again, a continuation of such, this really goes into the matter of fair play, Your Honor. [00:03:35] Speaker 2: Honorable Dilemma, kindly wind up. Again, you were forewarned beforehand to kindly limit your statements. Hence, you are faced again with a similar situation. Kindly wind up, Honorable Dilemma, and call Your Witness. Ang dami pong malalapasan sa aking opening statement because this is supposed to be an overview of the case, the overview of the evidence. To let the witness speak, not the counsels, insofar as the evidence is concerned or conclusions of both fact and law. Kindly wind up, Honorable Dilemma. [00:04:10] Speaker 1: I submit, Your Honors, and so I will wind up. Kapag ang isang impeachable officer, tulad ng pangalawang panguloy, nabuso ang kapangyarihan sa paraang sumisira sa accountability, o sa musuway sa pananagutan, dapat pa ba siyang pagkatiwalaan? Dapat pa ba siyang manatili sa pwesto? When the Filipino people entrusted their money to Vice President Sara Duterte, was that trust honored? That question will not be answered by politics, by general denials, by press release, It will be answered by the witnesses, by the documents, by audit, and by the evidence, and the prosecution is ready to present it. sa kabuuan ng ebidensya, makita ang hindi lang mga simpleng irregularidadan nangyari. [00:05:03] Speaker 3: Objection, Your Honor. Again, objection, Your Honor. [00:05:05] Speaker 2: Honorable Dilemma, I would have to stop you at this point. The continuing objection of the respondent is duly noted. I would have to stop you at this point. And I have to stop now. My due apologies, but kindly call your witness already. Thank you, Your Honors. [00:05:20] Speaker 1: I submit, thank you very much. Thank you very much. [00:05:28] Speaker ?: Thank you.