Ferrer: VP Sara already challenged House hearings before SC as 'fishing expedition,' 'mini-trial'

[0:01] to save on the court's time so ordered thank you now before the court makes a ruling on the um [0:12] on the um motion for judicial notice the court promised to hear and listen to the council for [0:20] respondents either in writing or orally um i have been informed by the clerk that no um response [0:27] responsive leading was given um by the council for the respondents so i guess um you will be um [0:36] orally arguing your the motion if i may uh your honor beforehand um i guess you will be already [0:42] arguing um on the motion for judicial notice council attorney christine uh we are ready your honor [0:50] again just to hear your side yes at this juncture your honor i respectfully turn over to our [0:55] public prosecutor and head public prosecutor uh chairman jinkley yes thank you um honorable luistro [1:04] um before i recognize you um mam haileen you are excused sorry paul um you are you are excused but [1:14] you are ordered um without need for the issuance of another subpoena to appear once again before this [1:21] court on um august and 11 um 10 um so in open court um you are directed to appear here once again [1:35] um on august 10 we will be issuing another subpoena should you should we require your presence again [1:42] on august 11 onwards um do you understand ma'am yes for your honor so magpapakita po kayo [1:50] sa lunes ulit nang wala nang sabina yes po your honor salamat po your excuse ma'am and thank you for [1:56] your presence and cooperation this afternoon and your patience now this won't be oral arguments the the [2:05] the court the chair just wanted to hear from the council for respondents so really um this will not be [2:11] oral arguments between the parties yes what is the position of the um of the council for respondent in so [2:19] far as the motion for judicial notice of certain records of the house good government committee [2:31] and um public accountability committees if i'm not mistaken attorney christine you'll be arguing [2:38] yes your honor you may proceed ma'am when you're ready thank you your honor um the defense would [2:45] like to oppose the motion for judicial notice on the following grounds number one the judicial notice [2:52] rule cannot be taken uh of disputed matters number two the respondent must be given an opportunity to [3:00] be heard by way of cross-examination before the court admits in evidence the matter is covered by the tsn [3:07] tsn's the video recordings and the committee reports and number three the proceedings before the hor [3:14] coj were questioned by the respondent before the supreme court as a fishing expedition and mini trial [3:22] uh on the first point your honor uh judicial notice cannot be taken of disputed matters [3:28] in one versus one the supreme court defined judicial notice in this wise judicial notice is the cognizance [3:37] of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are already [3:44] known to them put differently it is the assumption of a court of a fact without need of further traditional [3:51] evidentiary support the principle is based on convenience and expediency in securing and introducing evidence [3:59] on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed while the cg gpa [4:09] and h or coj hearings were made public we do not dispute that your honor the matters discussed within [4:17] them which were documented via the tsn's video recordings and committee reports are not facts [4:25] automatically admissible in this impeachment trial rather they remain assertions that must be proven by [4:32] evidence we note your honor that article one of the articles of impeachment alleges the following [4:40] that respondent vice president sarah z duterte committed culpable violation of the constitution [4:47] graft and corruption and betrayed public trust through the systematic misuse misappropriation [4:54] and irregular liquidation of confidential funds amounting to 500 million pesos released to the office [5:01] of the vice president and 112.5 million pesos released to the department of education clearly your honor [5:09] these are not just statement of facts these are accusations of misuse misappropriation [5:16] and irregular liquidation of confidential funds which must be proven by the by the prosecution through [5:22] presentation of evidence in fact your honor if you notice the prosecution in paragraph one of its motion [5:30] for judicial notice admitted that i quote prior to the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to this [5:37] honorable court the house of representatives through its committee on good government and public [5:44] accountability and its committee on justice conducted official hearings on matters that ultimately formed [5:51] the factual basis of article one we highlight that your honor ultimately formed the factual basis of article [5:58] one which is uh the misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds okay article one of the articles of [6:06] impeachment as a continuation these proceedings were officially documented through transcript of [6:11] stenographic notes or tsn's official audio visual recordings and committee reports i am just um reading your honor i'm just referring to the motion of the prosecution [6:23] thus we cannot take the tsn's the video recordings and the committee reports as they are your honor without cross-examining the witnesses of the prosecution [6:34] the impeachment court the impeachment court cannot just take the utterances testimonies the questions and [6:40] answers and the interpolations during the coj and the cggpa hearings as factual findings and statements of truth [6:48] without going through the usual drug of evidence presentation in fact your honor we are even unsure whether these videos are spliced [6:57] edited edited or shorted with your respect and whether the tsn's are accurate and edited or modified as portions of the tsn's turned out to be different in our to our transcribed notes which leads [7:11] me actually your honor to my second point uh that because the matter is covered by the pieces of evidence your honor which the prosecution would like this court to take judicial notice [7:21] are exactly the matters that are being heard before this impeachment court the respondent must be given an [7:28] opportunity to be heard by way of cross-examination before the court admits in evidence the tsn's the video [7:35] recordings and the committee reports the requirement of due process is basic it is the opportunity to be heard [7:42] before the court and affording the respondent the opportunity to cross-examine the send and [7:48] uh the to cross-examine the authenticating witness serves a dual purpose your honor uh first it validates [7:56] the existence of the video recordings the tsn's and the committee report and second it verifies their [8:03] accuracy and completeness the constitution explicitly guarantees the respondents right to ensure that these [8:10] pieces of evidence have not been altered edited or modified to fit the prosecution's narrative of article one [8:18] consequently the respondent is fully entitled to have all the observations the objections and cross [8:23] examination questions placed on record before the court admits these documents in evidence it is also [8:31] a matter of record your honor that the videos that the prosecution would like this court to take [8:36] judicial notice were not played during the pre-trial conference your honor and it is with the [8:43] understanding between the parties that there shall be subjected to proper authentication and identification [8:49] during trial consistent with the rules of court and third the respondent has directly challenged [8:57] the house of representatives committee on justice proceedings before the honorable before the supreme court [9:03] your honor characterizing them as a mere fishing expedition and an authorized mini trial your honor [9:09] consequently the respondent declined to participate in these proceedings maintaining that the horcoj lacks [9:16] the jurisdiction to conduct these trials under articles article 9 sections section 3 paragraph 6 of the [9:24] constitution the respondent submits that that exclusive power and authority is vested solely with with or in the [9:31] senate your honor that's why a petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by the respondent before the [9:39] supreme court so we cannot stipulate your honor uh on the matters that were taken up in a proceeding that [9:46] the respondent challenged before the supreme court but crucially your honor the petition pending before the [9:53] supreme court challenges the proceedings before the horcoj only and not the actions of the honorable [10:00] impeachment court this distinction however does not preclude any future legal challenges against [10:07] actions that this court may take while sitting as an impeachment court uh the respondent your honor not [10:14] uh uh was consistent in her position your honor in fact in a letter dated march 24 2026 the respondent [10:24] through counsel informed the horcoj that she cannot attend the mini trial and the fishing expedition [10:31] being done by the said committee because of the committee's apparent lack of authority under the [10:35] constitution constitution the closing paragraphs of the letter state and i will read uh the closing [10:42] paragraphs for the record in light of this while the invitation for the respondent and council to [10:47] participate in the committee's mini trial is well noted we cannot however do so at this point on the ground [10:54] that the committee and or the h or as well as any of its members lack jurisdiction to conduct any form of trial or [11:02] exercise any of its incidents absent such jurisdiction any attempt to proceed in the nature of any form of trial [11:10] or invoke powers ancillary to it is unconstitutional consequently the respondent puts on record her objection [11:18] to any requests motions or similar efforts aimed at obtaining or fishing for supposed evidence through [11:26] processes that necessarily presuppose the existence of local authority and jurisdiction under the constitution [11:33] which in this case is absent as timely stated in the appearance and consolidated answer both made out [11:42] ad kotelam the respondent does not wave any jurisdictional or other objections she has to these proceedings [11:48] nor her right to seek the appropriate legal remedies nonetheless she is prepared to meet the charges against her [11:55] in proper jurisdiction and because of that your honor the court must decline to take judicial notice [12:02] because the very validity and authority of the the house of representatives coj proceedings are currently [12:10] challenged before the supreme court now uh on closing your honor uh on its face actually the motion may look [12:18] like a plea for this honorable court to take judicial notice of the purported official legislative acts [12:25] described by the prosecution however your honor if you really examine the motion your honor in reality [12:32] however it the motion actually is actually akin to a public prosecutor the house of representatives [12:42] asking the criminal court here the impeachment court to take judicial notice of the complaint that [12:48] that was filed before the fiscal here the hrc oj and all matters related there to including those that [12:57] transpired during the preliminary investigation without the need of for presenting witnesses in court that is [13:05] actually uh what the prosecution is doing in our view your honor [13:09] Um unpuny and all about the inclination of office of representatives as a mis mong paksa [13:16] nang paglilitis nang hook oway mang ito at ayun mismo sa prosecution those hearings became the fact [13:23] one basis for article one of the articles of impeachment naralap narapat lamang o na ang mga psls video [13:31] recordings at community reports na naglalaman ng mga tanong ng congressista pati pati pating ang mga pahayag at sagot [13:39] sagot ng mga testigo ay patunayan ng prosecution sa pamamagitan ng pagpresenta ng testigo upang magpatunay sa katotohanan ng mga ito. [13:48] In closing, Your Honor, I would like to quote the Supreme Court in Juan v. Juan. [13:53] The article, the Supreme Court said, [13:55] The article in the website cited by the RTC patently lacks a requisite for it to be of judicial notice to the court because such article is not well and authoritatively settled and is doubtful or uncertain. [14:12] It must be remembered that some articles appearing in the internet or the websites are easily edited and their sources are unverifiable, [14:22] thus sole reliance on those articles is greatly discouraged. [14:27] The defense opposes the motion, Your Honor, on identical grounds. [14:31] Salamat po. [14:33] Again, these are not all arguments, counsel. [14:36] Chair had anticipated the position of the counsel for respondent. [14:40] In fact, Chair would like to clarify. [14:42] The one versus one case is the Lavandera Co case, right? [14:45] Yes, Your Honor. [14:46] Ito yung Lavandera Co na kumpanya na ni-reklamo violating copyright standards, hindi ba?