Oral argument on the subpoena of the VP Sara, husband’s financial records on impeachment trial

[0:00] Chair notes the observation of Senator Judge Alan Cayetano. However, I'm subject, of course, [0:06] to any agreements that will be arrived at in caucus. We are constrained by the motions filed [0:12] by the parties. There are only two pending motions that this court should act upon. Number one, [0:18] a motion for the issuance of a subpoena with respect to bank and AMLC records on the one hand, [0:23] and number two, a motion for the issuance of subpoena for BIR records. Understandably, [0:30] there are sub-issues underneath each, but we cannot put a vote each and every sub-issue [0:37] under each motion. So we will most likely, and the chair would suggest, put it to a vote [0:43] by the motions that have been filed by the parties, whether or not to grant it or to deny [0:49] the motion filed by the council, filed by the prosecutors, rather, in this case. Again, [0:55] subject, of course, any agreements we might arrive at in caucus, Senator Judge Alan, and [1:02] the chair will submit to that. Now, as earlier agreed in yesterday's proceedings, the prosecution [1:09] will be given 15 minutes for their chief arguments. Likewise, the respondent will be given 15 minutes, [1:16] and then thereafter, the prosecutor will be given 10 minutes by way of rebuttal, and the respondent [1:25] will be given 10 minutes by way of sir rebuttal. May I ask who among the prosecutors or counsel for [1:32] prosecutors will argue the motion for the issuance of the subpoenas for the banks, AMLC, and BIR? [1:38] Your Honours, the prosecution will be represented by the Honorable Representative Chell Jokno for the [1:46] purpose of this oral argument. Nonetheless, Your Honour, we have some manifestation to make [1:51] for the prosecution. The lead prosecutor may proceed. This is pertaining to the matter on hand. [2:01] This pertains, Your Honour, to the remaining witnesses for Article 4 threat. [2:05] Can we discuss that later before we adjourn, lead prosecutor? We submit, Your Honour. [2:11] Thank you. On the part of the respondent, who would argue? On the part of the respondent, [2:16] Your Honour, I will be the one arguing today. For the record, kindly state your full name, [2:21] Attorney Poa. My name is Michael Wesley T. Poa, Your Honour. Thank you. [2:26] Your Honour, we're requesting that Congressman Chell Jokno be recognized. [2:31] For the prosecutors, the Honourable Representative from the party list of Bayan, Chell Jokno, [2:37] is recognized for his oral arguments on the motions, twin motions that they filed. [2:44] You are recognized, sir, and you may proceed when you're ready. You have 15 minutes. [2:48] Thank you, Your Honour. Good afternoon, everyone, to the members of this Honourable Court. [2:55] May it please the Court. [2:57] Simple lang po ang isyong kinakaharap natin ngayong hapon na ito. [3:02] Pero napakabigat. Bubuksan ba natin ang pinto ng katotohanan o haharangin ito? [3:08] Ang hiling ng prosekusyon ay mailabas ang buong katotohanan so that this Court may know the truth, [3:17] the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and make its decisions based on that. [3:23] That is why we have requested the issuance of Sabina dos Estekum for the bank records, tax records, [3:32] and Anti-Money Laundering Council reports relating to Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, [3:39] Attorney Manz Carpio. [3:41] Sa pamamagitan nito, may lalahad ang buong katotohanan tungkol sa mga allegasyon sa Article 2 ng Articles of Impeachment. [3:50] Una, na pinayaman ni Vice Presidente ang kanyang sarili ng labis-labis sa kanyang legal na sahod at lehitimong kita bilang isang lingkod bayan. [4:04] Pangalawa, na meron siyang mga ari-arihang hindi dineklara sa kanyang Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. [4:13] Pangatlo, na habang siya ay nanunungkulan bilang Vice Presidente, nakibahagi siya sa negosyo, directly or indirectly, kahit ipinagbabawal ito ng ating Constitution. [4:29] Sasabihin marahil ng depensa na walang kapangyarihan ang hukumang ito, [4:35] nabusisiin ang mga bank records, tax records, at AMLA reports ni VP Sara. [4:41] With all due respect, that argument is not only legally flawed, it is an affront to the authority of this Honorable Court. [4:54] Kung takanggapin po natin ang argumentong ito, hahayaan natin maliitin at insultuhin ang hukumang ito. [5:04] The Constitution, Your Honors, please, vests this impeachment court with extraordinary powers. [5:09] Tanging ang hukumang ito, lamang ang may kapangyarihamag pa siya, kung ang mga pinakamataas na pinuno ng ating bansa ay karapat dapat pa rin manungkulan. [5:24] Because this power comes directly from the Constitution, no one, no person, no law, no administrative rule can limit or supersede it. [5:34] I repeat, nothing and no one can handcuff this court's power to try and decide this impeachment case. [5:45] Kahit ang bank secrecy law po ay sumusunod at tumatalima sa impeachment court. [5:52] The law explicitly states, and I quote its pertinent portions, [5:56] All deposits are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature, except in cases of impeachment. [6:07] Walang kadudaduda, may karapatan at kapangyarihan ng impeachment court na busisiin ang mga bank records ni VP Sara. [6:16] Hindi rin po hadlang ang Data Privacy Act. [6:19] Muli, walang kadudaduda, may karapatan at kapangyarihan ng impeachment court na ipasabpina ang mga dokumento ni VP Sara Duterte. [6:42] Pero sabi po ng kampo ni VP, irrelevant daw ang mga bank records, AMLOC reports at BIR records. [6:52] Lalo na daw yung mga transaksyon na nangyari bago siya umupo bilang pangalawang pangulo dahil wala raw itong kinalaman sa kaso nito. [7:03] The prosecution respectfully but vehemently disagrees. [7:08] Ayon sa report ng Anti-Money Laundering Council na'y sinumite sa Committee on Justice ng House of Representatives, [7:17] the financial activity of Vice President Sara C. Duterte increased significantly starting 2007 [7:24] when transaction values surged to 208.15 million pesos. [7:31] According to this report, which is marked as Exhibit P-2-7-8, [7:38] I quote, [7:39] Financial movements intensified between 2009 and 2013 [7:45] with consistently high totals exceeding P400 million pesos, [7:50] including notable peaks in 2009, P704.93 million pesos, [7:57] 2010, P648.58 million pesos, [8:02] and 2011, P597.15 million pesos. [8:07] Si VP Sara Poe ay nanungkulan bilang Vice Mayor ng Davao City mula 2007 hanggang 2010. [8:16] Naglingkod naman siya bilang Mayor ng Davao City mula 2010 hanggang 2013. [8:24] From 2007 to 2013, [8:27] ayon sa records ng AMLOC, [8:29] lumampas sa P3 billion pesos ang kanyang financial activity. [8:34] May kinalaman ba ito? [8:37] Ito ba ay relevant sa Article 2 ng Articles of Impeachment, [8:41] which alleges, among others, [8:43] that VP Sara betrayed the public trust [8:46] and culpably violated the Constitution [8:48] when she amassed unexplained wealth [8:51] manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income. [8:55] Para sa prosecution, [8:57] malinaw ang sagot. [8:58] The Vice President's financial activity [9:01] as Vice Mayor and Mayor of Davao City [9:04] relates directly to the main fact-in issue in this case, [9:09] her fitness or unfitness to serve as Vice President. [9:14] Let me explain. [9:15] The framers of the 1987 Constitution [9:18] added betrayal of public trust as a ground for impeachment, [9:21] and I quote, [9:22] to include all acts which render the officer [9:26] unfit to continue in office. [9:30] For this Honorable Court to determine [9:32] whether VP Sara Duterte is unfit to continue in office, [9:36] it must have a clear picture [9:38] of the respondent as a public servant. [9:41] Kailangan makita ng publiko [9:43] at ng mga Senator Judge [9:45] ang tunay na kulay ng Vice Presidente [9:48] at larawan ng kanyang buong pagkatao [9:51] bilang isang lingkod bayan. [9:54] If she amassed staggering amounts of unexplained wealth [9:58] while she was a Vice Mayor and Mayor, [10:01] doesn't that say a lot [10:02] about her unfitness to serve as a Vice President? [10:06] Isn't that relevant to the question [10:08] this Court must resolve at the end of this trial [10:11] of whether or not the Vice President [10:13] betrayed the trust given to her by the people? [10:18] From what I have gathered and read, [10:20] Your Honors, please, [10:21] this is not the first time [10:22] this Court has been confronted with this issue. [10:26] Sa impeachment ni dating Chief Justice Renato Corona, [10:30] tinanggap ng hukumang ito [10:32] ang mga ebidensyang nakalap [10:34] bago pa man siya naupo bilang punong hukum. [10:38] I believe it was then Senator Judge, [10:40] now Presiding Officer Francis Escudero, [10:43] who raised the question, [10:45] will the impeachment court consider [10:47] only Corona's acts as Chief Justice? [10:50] This after observing that some exhibits [10:53] predated his appointment as Chief Justice. [10:57] This matter was taken up in caucus, [10:59] after which this Court decided [11:01] to allow such evidence. [11:04] When Philippine Savings Bank President [11:07] Pascual Garcia III testified before this Court [11:10] in the same Corona trial, [11:12] he refused to answer the question [11:14] of then Senator Judge Franklin Drilon [11:16] on the starting balance of Corona's [11:18] two peso-denominated accounts. [11:21] But, if I'm not mistaken, [11:23] it was Senator Judge Alan Peter Cayetano [11:26] who said that records of initial deposits [11:28] are among the quote-unquote opening documents [11:31] that should have been brought to the impeachment court. [11:34] After reading the subpoena, [11:37] Presiding Officer Senator Juan Ponce Enrile held [11:40] that Senator Judge Cayetano's observation [11:43] was correct. [11:45] During the same hearing, [11:46] the presiding officer ordered the issuance of subpoena [11:49] to PS Bank Katipunan branch manager [11:52] Annabelle Cheong Son [11:53] to bring all the bank records of the Chief Justice. [11:57] A few days later, [11:58] the impeachment court denied [12:00] the defense's motion to quash the subpoena [12:02] for the PESA bank accounts of CJ Corona. [12:06] The presiding officer explained [12:08] that the purpose of the subpoena [12:10] is to find out if Corona [12:12] has not included the deposits in his saline. [12:16] This court also denied [12:17] the defense's motion [12:19] to suppress evidence [12:20] on Corona's bank accounts. [12:23] Sa huli, [12:24] binusisi ng hukumang ito [12:26] ang bank records ni Chief Justice Corona [12:28] mula sa kanyang unang balanse [12:30] bago pa man siya naging punong magistrado. [12:34] The panel of prosecutors respectfully submits [12:36] that the subpoenas [12:38] for the production of the bank records, [12:40] AMLA documents, [12:41] and BIR documents of the Vice President [12:44] and her husband [12:45] are proper [12:46] and should be issued [12:47] by this Honorable Court. [12:49] Now allow me, Your Honors, [12:53] to return to my first point. [12:56] There is a deeper reason [12:58] why this court must resist [13:00] the attempts of the respondent [13:03] to exclude evidence [13:04] that is obviously relevant. [13:06] It has to do [13:07] with curtailing the power [13:09] of this court. [13:11] The Constitution gives this Honorable Court [13:13] and I quote, [13:14] the sole power [13:16] to try and decide impeachment cases. [13:19] Kayo lang po, Your Honors, [13:21] ang may kapangyarihan magpasya [13:23] kung ano ang impeachable offense [13:25] at kung anong ebidensya [13:27] ang maaring tanggapin [13:28] para patunayan ito. [13:31] Kinilala ito mismo ng Korte Suprema. [13:34] In the case of Francisco [13:36] versus House of Representatives, [13:38] the Supreme Court declared [13:39] and I quote, [13:40] a determination of what constitutes [13:42] an impeachable offense [13:43] is a purely political question [13:46] which the Constitution has left [13:48] to the sound discretion [13:49] of the legislature. [13:51] Such an intent is clear [13:53] from the deliberations [13:54] of the Constitutional Commission. [13:57] Inulit po ito ng Supreme Court [13:58] sa kasong Gutierrez [14:00] versus House of Representatives [14:01] where the Supreme Court declared [14:03] and I quote, [14:05] Francisco instructs [14:06] that this issue would require [14:07] the court to make a determination [14:09] of what constitutes [14:11] an impeachable offense. [14:13] Such a determination [14:14] is purely a political question [14:16] which this Constitution has left [14:18] to the sound discretion [14:19] of the legislature. [14:21] Clearly, the issue counts [14:23] upon this court [14:24] to decide a non-justiciable [14:26] political question [14:27] which is beyond the scope [14:29] of its judicial power. [14:32] Since this impeachment court [14:33] has the sole power [14:34] to determine what constitutes [14:35] an impeachable offense, [14:37] no one, not the Supreme Court, [14:40] much less the defense, [14:42] can impose limitations [14:43] on that power. [14:45] No one can dictate [14:46] to this court [14:47] how to exercise [14:48] the exclusive power [14:50] to decide what constitutes [14:52] an impeachable offense. [14:55] In closing, Your Honors, [14:57] I go back [14:57] to the most fundamental provision [14:59] in our Constitution [15:01] on the Accountability [15:02] of Public Officers, [15:04] Article 11, Section 1, [15:06] which provides, [15:07] and I quote, [15:08] Public office [15:09] is a public trust. [15:11] Public officers [15:12] and employees [15:13] must at all times [15:15] be accountable [15:16] to the people. [15:18] Ibig sabihin po, [15:20] sa proseso ng impeachment, [15:21] ang pananagutan [15:22] sa taong bayan [15:23] ang pinakamahalaga [15:25] sa lahat. [15:25] Kaya naman po, [15:28] ang hiling namin [15:29] sa korte, [15:29] gamitin ang inyong [15:31] natatanging kapangyarihan [15:33] at karapatan [15:34] na busisiin [15:35] ang bank records, [15:36] tax records, [15:37] at AMLA reports [15:38] kaugnay ni VP Sara [15:40] at ng kanyang asawa. [15:43] Sa ganitong paraan, [15:44] Your Honors, [15:45] madedesisyon na ninyo [15:47] ang kaso [15:47] base sa buong katotohanan. [15:51] The truth, [15:52] the whole truth, [15:53] and nothing but the truth [15:55] para sa interes [15:56] at kapakanan [15:57] ng sambayanang Pilipino. [15:59] Before I close, [16:02] If Your Honors, [16:02] please, [16:03] if I have whatever time [16:04] I have left, [16:05] may I request [16:06] that it be credited [16:07] to my rebuttal. [16:09] Maraming maraming salamat po. [16:10] We will try to do that, [16:14] Your Honor. [16:14] You have one minute [16:15] and 39 seconds. [16:17] And if at all we do so, [16:18] we shall [16:19] equally credit it [16:23] to the sir rebuttal, [16:24] if any, [16:25] of the Council for Respondents. [16:27] Attorney Poa, [16:29] if you are ready, [16:29] you may proceed [16:30] with your oral arguments [16:32] on the twin motions [16:33] filed by the prosecutors. [16:35] You may proceed, sir, [16:35] when you're ready. [16:36] Thank you, Your Honor. [16:37] You have 15 minutes. [16:38] Mr. Presiding Officer, [16:40] Honorable Senator Judges, [16:42] magandang hapon po [16:42] sa inyong lahat. [16:44] The issue [16:44] before the impeachment court today [16:47] is not whether you possess [16:49] the power [16:49] to issue [16:50] a subpoena. [16:51] The real issue [16:53] is whether such power [16:56] may be exercised [16:57] in a manner [16:58] that disregards [16:59] due process [17:00] and compels [17:02] the production [17:02] of documents [17:04] and information [17:05] beyond what [17:06] is allowed [17:07] by law. [17:09] Your Honors, [17:10] jurisprudence provides [17:11] that for a subpoena [17:13] to be valid, [17:14] it must comply [17:16] with twin requirements [17:17] of one, [17:19] definiteness [17:20] and two, [17:21] relevance. [17:24] Ibig sabihin po nun, [17:25] dapat, [17:25] particularly described po [17:27] ang nasasaklaw [17:29] ng subpoena [17:30] at dapat, [17:31] may direktang kaugnayan [17:33] sa ginagawang paglilitis. [17:36] Your Honors, [17:37] when a subpoena [17:38] becomes [17:40] oppressive, [17:41] when it is unreasonable [17:43] and when [17:44] it is merely [17:45] issued [17:46] for the very purpose [17:48] that there is a hope [17:49] that somewhere, [17:52] somehow, [17:53] something incriminating [17:54] will come out, [17:56] it ceases [17:56] to be an instrument [17:58] of justice. [18:00] It becomes [18:01] a weapon [18:01] of a fishing expedition. [18:05] And that is exactly [18:06] what confronts [18:07] this very court today. [18:09] And that is why [18:10] the defense [18:11] has taken the position [18:12] that the prosecution's [18:14] requests [18:15] must be denied. [18:17] Allow me to explain [18:18] and let me begin [18:19] with constitutional points. [18:22] Our first point, [18:23] Your Honors, [18:23] due process. [18:27] Impeachment [18:27] is primarily [18:29] a legal [18:30] and constitutional [18:31] procedure [18:32] with political [18:33] characteristics. [18:35] It is sui generis, [18:36] but it is not [18:38] a purely [18:38] political [18:39] proceeding. [18:41] Ibig sabihin po nun, [18:43] the Bill of Rights, [18:45] especially, [18:46] the due process [18:47] clause [18:48] applies [18:49] in all stages [18:51] of the impeachment [18:52] process. [18:53] Your Honors, [18:54] those are not [18:55] my words. [18:57] Those are the words [18:58] of the Supreme Court [18:59] in Duterte [19:00] versus House [19:01] of Representatives. [19:03] And that [19:03] is the law [19:04] of the land. [19:06] When we speak [19:06] of due process, [19:08] we offer [19:09] a simple proposition [19:10] that evidence [19:13] must be present [19:14] to support [19:15] each and every [19:17] accusation. [19:19] Pero hindi po yun [19:20] yung nangyari dito. [19:21] Balikan po natin [19:23] kung sa tayo, [19:24] kung sa nagsimula [19:25] itong proceeding na ito. [19:27] I have here with me, [19:28] Your Honors, [19:29] copies [19:30] of the Sabalia [19:31] and Cabrera [19:33] complaints. [19:34] Both filed [19:35] before the House [19:36] of Representatives. [19:37] Both accused [19:38] the Vice President [19:40] of allegedly amassing [19:42] unexplained wealth. [19:45] Both with [19:46] voluminous attachments. [19:48] Yet not one [19:49] attached [19:51] a document [19:52] to support [19:53] that accusation. [19:55] Not a single [19:56] financial transaction [19:58] record. [19:59] Not even [20:00] a single [20:01] SAL-N. [20:02] In fact, [20:04] it was only [20:05] after these complaints [20:06] were filed [20:06] and more significantly, [20:09] only after [20:10] the respondent [20:12] had filed [20:13] her answer [20:13] before the Committee [20:14] on Justice [20:15] that that Committee [20:17] started searching [20:19] for evidence [20:20] to somehow [20:21] support these [20:22] accusations [20:23] through, again, [20:24] the issuance [20:25] of subpoenas. [20:27] Your Honors, [20:28] we objected then [20:29] and we are still [20:30] objecting now [20:31] because with all [20:32] due respect, [20:34] the position [20:34] of the defense [20:35] is that is [20:36] the very definition [20:37] of a fishing [20:38] expedition. [20:41] Your Honors, [20:44] in our legal system, [20:45] it is not [20:46] permitted [20:47] to accuse [20:49] now [20:50] and then [20:51] just look [20:51] for proof [20:52] later on. [20:53] That is now, [20:54] that is not [20:55] how due process [20:56] works. [20:58] Hindi po dapat [20:58] natin [20:59] pinapayagan yan. [21:01] Moving on [21:02] to my second [21:02] point, [21:03] Your Honors, [21:04] let's talk [21:04] about relevance. [21:07] It is our [21:08] position [21:08] that the requests [21:10] of the prosecution [21:11] are in fact [21:13] fatally [21:14] overbroad. [21:16] Bakit po [21:16] fatally [21:17] overbroad? [21:18] An impeachable [21:20] offense [21:20] is an act [21:21] or omission [21:22] committed [21:23] while the [21:24] public official [21:25] is occupying [21:26] an impeachable [21:27] office, [21:28] not before [21:29] being elected [21:31] or appointed [21:32] to such [21:32] position. [21:34] Again, [21:34] Your Honors, [21:35] those are not [21:36] my words. [21:38] Those are the [21:39] words of the [21:39] Supreme Court [21:40] in Duterte [21:41] versus the [21:42] House of [21:43] Representatives. [21:45] That is [21:45] controlling [21:46] and that [21:47] is the law [21:48] of the land. [21:49] Yet here, [21:50] Your Honor, [21:51] today, [21:51] the prosecution [21:52] is requesting [21:54] for documents [21:55] spanning [21:56] almost two [21:57] decades, [21:59] almost 20 [21:59] years, [22:01] dating as [22:01] far back [22:02] as 2007. [22:05] Your Honors, [22:06] it is a fact [22:07] that noong 2007 [22:09] ang respondent [22:11] ay Vice Mayor [22:12] pa lamang. [22:13] Definitely [22:13] not an [22:15] impeachable [22:16] office, [22:16] Your Honors. [22:19] How is that [22:20] relevant? [22:21] It is the [22:21] position of the [22:22] defense that [22:23] it is not. [22:24] In fact, [22:25] what that [22:26] is, [22:26] is an [22:27] unlimited [22:27] search [22:28] throughout [22:29] a person's [22:30] financial [22:31] history. [22:32] That should [22:33] not be [22:34] allowed. [22:35] Your Honors, [22:36] if a subpoena [22:37] is not [22:38] narrowly tailored, [22:40] it is [22:40] oppressive. [22:42] For these [22:42] reasons alone, [22:45] we are of the [22:45] position that [22:46] the request [22:47] should already [22:47] be dismissed. [22:49] Nonetheless, [22:50] if the impeachment [22:51] court were to [22:54] extend its [22:55] utmost liberality, [22:57] which the [22:57] prosecution have [22:58] asked for in [22:59] their memorandum, [23:01] we'd like to [23:02] point out, [23:02] Your Honors, [23:03] that Congress [23:04] itself, [23:05] the Senate, [23:06] and the House [23:07] of Representatives [23:08] enacted laws [23:10] that specifically [23:11] prohibit the [23:16] disclosure of [23:17] this information [23:19] that the [23:19] prosecution is [23:20] asking for now. [23:21] Let us [23:22] go through [23:22] them one [23:23] by one. [23:24] Let's [23:24] start with [23:25] RA-9160 [23:27] as amended [23:27] by RA-11521, [23:30] which is the [23:30] anti-money [23:31] laundering [23:31] app. [23:33] Your Honors, [23:33] the prosecution [23:34] is asking [23:35] for covered [23:37] transaction [23:38] reports, [23:39] suspicious [23:39] transaction [23:40] reports, [23:41] financial [23:41] intelligence [23:42] reports, [23:43] again, [23:43] spanning [23:44] almost two [23:46] decades. [23:47] However, [23:48] it is clear [23:48] under Section [23:49] 8A, [23:50] which we are [23:51] flashing on the [23:51] screen right [23:52] now, [23:53] that it [23:53] has [23:53] disclosure [23:56] is prohibited [23:57] under this [23:58] provision, [23:59] Your Honors. [24:01] It is in [24:02] black and [24:02] white. [24:03] Meron po [24:03] bang [24:04] exception? [24:05] Wala po. [24:07] Impeachment [24:08] is not [24:09] an exception. [24:10] Had [24:10] Congress [24:11] wanted [24:12] to make [24:13] impeachment [24:13] as an [24:14] exception, [24:16] madali [24:16] lang naman [24:16] pong ilagay [24:17] yun sa [24:17] batas. [24:19] Pero [24:19] hindi [24:19] po [24:19] yun [24:20] nagawa. [24:20] Now, [24:22] in fact, [24:23] I also [24:24] have [24:24] here [24:24] copies [24:26] of [24:27] the [24:28] financial [24:28] intelligence [24:29] report [24:30] and [24:32] another [24:32] report [24:33] from [24:33] the [24:34] AMLAC, [24:34] the [24:34] Information [24:35] Management [24:35] Analysis [24:36] Group, [24:37] which were [24:37] already [24:38] marked as [24:38] exhibits, [24:39] Your Honor, [24:40] and it's [24:40] in the [24:41] records [24:41] of the [24:41] court. [24:43] Exhibit [24:43] D2-8-P1, [24:48] where it [24:48] says [24:49] specifically [24:49] that [24:51] the information [24:54] should not [24:54] be used [24:55] as evidence [24:56] in formal [24:56] proceedings, [24:57] Your [24:57] Honors. [24:59] Dearly, [25:00] Your [25:00] Honors, [25:03] to [25:04] compel [25:05] AMLAC [25:07] officials [25:08] to disclose [25:09] such [25:09] information [25:10] would be [25:10] to compel [25:11] them to [25:12] violate [25:12] the law. [25:15] Let's [25:15] move on [25:15] now to [25:16] the [25:16] tax [25:16] records, [25:17] Your [25:17] Honors. [25:18] Prosecution [25:18] is asking [25:19] for tax [25:20] records, [25:20] so let's [25:21] look at [25:21] the [25:21] tax [25:21] code, [25:23] Section [25:23] 270 [25:24] of which [25:25] criminalizes [25:27] disclosure [25:28] of [25:29] taxpayers' [25:30] information. [25:32] Meron [25:33] po [25:33] bang [25:33] exception [25:34] sa batas [25:34] na ito? [25:36] Meron po, [25:38] but it [25:38] is limited. [25:39] Kasama [25:40] po bang [25:40] impeachment? [25:42] Hindi po. [25:43] That is [25:44] very clear. [25:45] Again, [25:46] Congress [25:46] wanted to [25:47] put an [25:48] exception [25:49] for impeachment. [25:50] They could [25:50] have easily [25:51] done so, [25:52] but they [25:52] did not. [25:54] Now, [25:54] Your Honors, [25:55] let's go [25:56] to [25:56] bank [25:58] secrecy [25:59] law, [26:00] RA [26:00] 1405. [26:03] The state [26:03] policy has [26:04] always been [26:05] for [26:06] to favor [26:09] the secrecy [26:10] of bank [26:10] deposits, [26:11] Your Honors. [26:12] Dito, [26:14] while we [26:14] recognize [26:15] that impeachment [26:16] is in fact [26:17] an exception, [26:18] Your Honors, [26:19] we submit [26:19] that this [26:20] exception [26:21] is not [26:23] automatic. [26:24] Meaning, [26:25] hindi [26:25] porkit [26:26] may exception [26:26] for impeachment, [26:28] pwede [26:28] nakaagad [26:29] natin [26:29] buksan [26:30] ang lahat [26:31] ng bank [26:31] records [26:32] na hinihingi [26:33] ng prosecution. [26:34] Why? [26:35] Because, [26:35] Your Honor, [26:36] this exception [26:37] does not [26:37] dispense [26:38] with [26:39] constitutional [26:41] safeguards. [26:42] it does [26:42] not [26:42] abolish [26:43] the [26:43] right [26:44] to [26:44] due [26:44] process. [26:45] So, [26:46] dapat po, [26:46] meron pa rin [26:47] tayong basihan. [26:49] If you look [26:50] at the [26:50] articles [26:51] of [26:51] impeachment, [26:53] wala [26:53] naman po [26:54] doon [26:54] na nagsasabing [26:55] yung [26:56] sinasabing [26:56] unexplained [26:57] wealth [26:58] coming [26:59] from [26:59] even [27:00] if [27:00] it [27:00] was [27:01] an [27:01] illegal [27:01] activity [27:02] ay [27:02] pinasok [27:03] sa isang [27:03] specific [27:04] account. [27:05] In fact, [27:06] Your Honors, [27:07] this exception [27:08] does not [27:09] automatically [27:09] mean [27:10] that we [27:11] should [27:11] permit [27:11] a [27:12] fishing [27:12] expedition. [27:14] Yun nga [27:14] pong [27:14] mga [27:15] bank [27:15] account [27:16] numbers [27:16] na [27:17] nakaspecify [27:17] sa [27:18] request [27:18] for [27:19] the [27:19] issuance [27:20] pa [27:20] sa [27:20] subpoena. [27:21] Ang [27:21] aming [27:21] posisyon [27:22] po [27:22] dyan, [27:22] yan [27:23] po [27:23] ay [27:23] nakalap [27:24] doon [27:24] sa [27:24] illegal [27:25] disclosure [27:25] with [27:26] all due [27:26] respect [27:27] na ginawa [27:27] ng [27:28] AMLAC [27:28] before [27:29] the [27:29] Committee [27:29] on [27:30] Justice. [27:31] And [27:31] then, [27:32] Your Honors, [27:32] they are also [27:33] asking for [27:33] the bank [27:34] records [27:35] of the [27:35] spouse. [27:36] Your [27:36] Honor, [27:37] the spouse [27:38] is not [27:39] an [27:39] impeachable [27:40] officer. [27:41] And [27:41] therefore, [27:42] the spouse [27:43] is not [27:43] covered [27:44] by this [27:44] exception. [27:46] Again, [27:47] Your Honors, [27:48] we should [27:48] not [27:48] allow [27:49] this. [27:50] In [27:51] closing, [27:51] Your Honors, [27:52] the prosecution [27:52] has repeatedly [27:54] invoked [27:55] accountability. [27:58] Your Honors, [27:58] we agree [27:59] with them. [28:00] No one [28:00] is above [28:01] the law. [28:03] But [28:03] in the same [28:03] manner, [28:04] no one [28:05] must fall [28:06] below [28:06] or be [28:07] outside [28:08] the protection [28:08] of the law. [28:10] Impeachment [28:11] is indeed [28:12] a powerful [28:13] constitutional [28:14] tool. [28:15] But, [28:15] Your Honors, [28:16] impeachment [28:17] is not [28:17] a magic [28:18] word or [28:19] a magic [28:19] wand [28:20] that one [28:21] can just [28:21] wave [28:22] to transform [28:23] an illegal [28:24] act [28:25] into a [28:25] legal act, [28:27] to transform [28:28] unlawful [28:29] access [28:29] to lawful [28:30] access. [28:32] That is not [28:33] what the [28:33] Constitution [28:34] contemplates. [28:35] That is [28:36] not what [28:36] the laws [28:37] enacted by [28:38] Congress [28:38] contemplate, [28:40] and that [28:40] is not [28:40] something [28:41] that the [28:42] Honorable [28:42] Impeachment [28:43] Court [28:43] should allow. [28:45] We submit, [28:46] Your Honors, [28:47] thank you very much. [28:48] The gentleman [28:49] still has [28:50] two minutes [28:50] and 48 seconds, [28:52] which we shall [28:53] credit, [28:54] similar to the [28:54] request of the [28:55] prosecutor, [28:57] to your [28:58] rebuttal, [28:59] should you [28:59] desire to [29:00] use it, [29:01] Counsel, [29:01] for the [29:01] respondent, [29:02] Attorney Paul. [29:02] Thank you, [29:03] Your Honor. [29:04] Counsel, [29:05] rather, [29:07] the prosecutor [29:07] is recognized, [29:09] Attorney [29:09] Cel Jokno. [29:11] You have [29:12] 11.38 minutes, [29:17] which will [29:18] round off [29:18] to 12 minutes, [29:19] Counsel. [29:21] You may proceed [29:21] when you're ready [29:22] for your [29:23] rebuttal. [29:24] Maraming salamat [29:25] po, [29:26] Mr. [29:26] Presiding [29:26] Officer, [29:27] at magandang [29:27] hapon po [29:28] ulit sa ating [29:28] lahat. [29:30] Let me [29:30] address each [29:31] of the [29:31] points that [29:32] the defense [29:33] has raised [29:34] in their [29:35] oral argument. [29:37] Sabi po nila [29:37] una ay [29:38] due process [29:39] daw ang isang [29:41] paulit-ulit [29:42] na dinidiin [29:44] ng defense. [29:46] But there's [29:46] no debate [29:47] that due [29:48] process [29:48] applies in [29:49] this proceeding [29:50] just like [29:51] in any [29:51] other proceeding. [29:53] The real [29:54] issue [29:54] before this [29:55] Honorable [29:56] Court [29:56] is will [29:58] the [29:58] subpoenas [29:59] that we [30:00] are asking [30:01] be issued [30:01] by this [30:02] Court [30:02] actually [30:03] deprive [30:04] the [30:05] respondent [30:05] of any [30:06] form [30:07] of due [30:07] process? [30:09] Ang aming [30:10] paniwala [30:10] po ay [30:11] hindi [30:11] and I'll [30:12] allow me [30:13] to explain [30:13] why. [30:14] First of [30:14] all, [30:15] we are [30:16] not yet [30:16] at the [30:16] stage [30:17] where [30:17] any [30:18] evidence [30:18] is being [30:19] put [30:19] in the [30:21] trial [30:21] or offered [30:22] to the [30:23] Honorable [30:23] Court. [30:24] Nandito [30:25] pa lang [30:25] po tayo [30:26] sa [30:26] punto [30:26] na kung [30:27] maari [30:28] bang [30:28] ipaproduce [30:31] natin [30:31] itong [30:32] mga [30:32] dokumentong [30:32] ito. [30:34] The [30:34] defense [30:34] will [30:34] have [30:35] every [30:35] opportunity [30:36] to [30:36] make [30:37] objections [30:37] if [30:38] and [30:38] when [30:39] particular [30:40] exhibits [30:41] or [30:41] documents [30:42] are [30:42] identified [30:43] by a [30:44] witness [30:44] and [30:45] offered [30:45] in [30:45] evidence. [30:46] Therefore, [30:48] wala pong [30:49] due [30:49] process [30:50] violation [30:51] ang pag-issue [30:52] ng [30:53] subpina. [30:54] second, [30:57] the [30:57] defense [30:58] repeatedly [30:58] cites [30:59] the [30:59] case [31:00] of [31:00] Duterte [31:00] versus [31:01] House [31:01] of [31:01] Representatives [31:02] as I [31:03] quote [31:03] the [31:03] law [31:04] of [31:04] the [31:04] land [31:04] as I [31:05] quote [31:05] controlling [31:07] daw [31:07] yung [31:08] decision [31:08] na yan. [31:09] But I [31:09] must [31:10] remind [31:10] the [31:10] defense [31:11] of [31:12] that [31:12] particular [31:13] case [31:13] and [31:14] why [31:14] the [31:15] pronouncements [31:15] quoted [31:16] are [31:17] mere [31:17] obiter [31:18] dicta [31:18] o [31:19] kung sa [31:19] simpleng [31:20] salita [31:20] po [31:20] ay [31:21] side [31:21] comment [31:22] lang. [31:23] The [31:24] entire [31:24] Duterte [31:25] versus [31:25] House [31:26] of [31:26] Representatives [31:26] case [31:27] revolved [31:28] around [31:28] a [31:29] different [31:30] mode [31:30] of [31:30] impeachment. [31:31] Kung [31:31] maalala [31:32] po natin [31:32] yan yung [31:33] one-third [31:34] at least [31:35] one-third [31:35] na members [31:36] of the [31:36] House [31:36] ang [31:37] nagsampa [31:37] ng [31:38] kaso. [31:39] And [31:39] the [31:39] entire [31:39] decision [31:40] discussed [31:41] how [31:42] due [31:43] process [31:43] should [31:44] apply [31:44] to [31:45] that [31:45] mode [31:46] of [31:46] impeachment. [31:47] Totoo [31:48] may [31:48] sinabi [31:49] ang [31:49] Supreme [31:49] Court [31:50] tungkol [31:50] sa [31:50] mode [31:51] na [31:51] ginamit [31:52] po [31:52] ng [31:53] Sabalia [31:54] and [31:55] the [31:55] Cabrera [31:55] complaints. [31:56] Pero [31:57] hindi [31:57] po [31:57] yun [31:58] ang [31:58] issue [31:58] sa [31:59] kaso [32:00] ni [32:00] Duterte. [32:01] That [32:02] issue [32:02] is [32:03] just [32:04] a [32:04] side [32:05] bypass [32:06] or [32:06] incidental [32:07] declarations [32:08] of the [32:09] court [32:09] that [32:10] are [32:10] not [32:10] controlling [32:11] and [32:12] are [32:12] not [32:12] the [32:13] law [32:13] of [32:13] the [32:13] land. [32:14] And [32:14] if [32:15] you [32:15] look [32:15] mismo [32:16] at [32:16] the [32:17] decision [32:17] of [32:18] the [32:18] court [32:18] they [32:18] expressly [32:19] said [32:19] we [32:20] are [32:20] speaking [32:21] of [32:21] due [32:21] process [32:22] in [32:22] relation [32:23] to [32:23] how [32:24] these [32:24] proceedings [32:25] reached [32:26] the [32:26] Senate [32:27] as an [32:27] impeachment [32:28] court. [32:28] Not [32:29] this [32:30] kind [32:30] of [32:31] procedure. [32:31] Second, [32:32] paulit-ulit [32:33] din po nilang [32:34] sinasabi [32:35] na [32:35] ang [32:36] ginagawa [32:36] po [32:36] ng [32:36] prosecution [32:37] ay [32:37] phishing [32:38] expedition. [32:41] Actually [32:41] po, [32:42] meron [32:42] ng [32:42] desisyon [32:43] ang [32:43] Supreme [32:43] Court [32:44] that [32:45] addresses [32:45] squarely [32:47] this [32:47] point. [32:48] This [32:48] case [32:48] involved [32:49] a [32:49] case [32:50] of [32:50] unexplained [32:50] wealth, [32:52] the [32:52] case [32:52] of [32:52] Republic [32:53] versus [32:53] Rabusa, [32:54] GR [32:55] 208183 [32:56] decided [32:57] August 31, [32:58] 2022. [33:00] Just [33:00] like [33:00] here, [33:02] the [33:02] prosecution [33:03] in that [33:03] case [33:04] requested [33:05] subpenas [33:06] for the [33:07] production [33:07] of [33:08] bank [33:08] records. [33:10] Just [33:10] like [33:10] here, [33:11] the [33:11] argument [33:12] was [33:12] raised [33:12] that [33:13] this [33:14] is [33:14] a [33:14] mere [33:14] phishing [33:15] expedition. [33:15] In fact, [33:17] hanggang [33:17] sa [33:17] Court [33:17] of [33:18] Appeals, [33:19] ang [33:19] Sabi [33:19] po ng [33:19] Court [33:20] of [33:20] Appeals [33:20] ay [33:20] phishing [33:21] expedition [33:22] lang po [33:23] yan. [33:23] But [33:23] please [33:24] allow [33:24] me [33:24] to [33:24] read [33:24] just [33:24] a [33:25] portion [33:25] of [33:26] what [33:26] the [33:26] Supreme [33:27] Court [33:27] held [33:28] here. [33:29] I [33:29] quote, [33:30] The [33:30] Court [33:30] of [33:30] Appeals [33:30] resolved [33:31] that [33:31] the [33:31] bank [33:32] accounts [33:32] of [33:32] Rabusa [33:33] et [33:33] al [33:33] were [33:33] protected [33:34] under [33:34] Republic [33:35] Act [33:35] 1405, [33:36] that [33:36] is [33:37] the [33:37] Bank [33:37] Secrecy [33:37] Law, [33:38] given [33:38] the [33:39] arbitrary [33:39] demand [33:40] to [33:40] disclose [33:40] the [33:41] contents [33:41] thereof, [33:42] the [33:42] Court [33:42] of [33:43] Appeals [33:43] considered [33:43] the [33:44] inquiry [33:44] as [33:45] a [33:45] phishing [33:46] expedition [33:46] to [33:47] utilize [33:48] evidence [33:48] against [33:49] Rabusa [33:49] et al. [33:50] In [33:51] the [33:51] instant [33:51] case, [33:52] given [33:52] that [33:53] the [33:53] court [33:53] orders [33:53] in [33:54] the [33:54] form [33:54] of [33:54] various [33:55] subpoena [33:55] and [33:57] ad [33:57] testificandum [33:58] all [33:58] involve [33:59] the [33:59] forfeiture [34:00] of [34:00] unexplained [34:01] wealth, [34:02] the [34:02] RTC [34:02] was [34:02] in [34:03] error [34:03] for [34:04] not [34:04] allowing [34:05] petitioner [34:06] to [34:06] examine, [34:07] inquire, [34:07] and [34:08] look [34:08] into [34:08] the [34:09] subject [34:09] accounts. [34:10] I [34:10] continue. [34:12] As [34:12] the [34:12] present [34:12] proceedings [34:13] on [34:13] unexplained [34:14] wealth [34:14] are [34:14] now [34:15] encompassed [34:15] within [34:16] the [34:16] exceptions [34:16] of [34:17] Republic [34:17] Act [34:17] 1405, [34:19] the [34:19] court [34:19] orders [34:20] subject [34:20] of [34:21] this [34:21] case [34:21] clearly [34:22] fall [34:23] within [34:23] the [34:23] orders [34:23] that [34:24] would [34:24] enable [34:24] the [34:25] examination [34:25] of [34:26] the [34:26] respondents [34:26] bank [34:27] accounts [34:27] as [34:28] contemplated [34:29] in [34:29] the [34:29] first [34:30] exception. [34:31] Thus, [34:31] it [34:31] comes [34:32] clear [34:32] that [34:32] this [34:32] court [34:33] cannot [34:33] sustain [34:34] the [34:34] RTCs [34:35] and [34:35] Court [34:36] of [34:36] Appeals [34:36] theory [34:37] that [34:37] there [34:37] was [34:38] no [34:38] court [34:38] order [34:38] authorizing [34:39] the [34:39] examination [34:40] of [34:40] the [34:40] bank [34:41] accounts. [34:42] On [34:42] the [34:42] contrary, [34:43] records [34:43] prove [34:44] that [34:44] the [34:44] RTC [34:45] issued [34:45] several [34:46] subpoena [34:46] du [34:46] sestecom [34:47] and [34:47] ad [34:47] testificandum [34:48] which [34:49] required [34:50] certain [34:50] persons [34:51] to testify [34:51] in [34:52] open [34:52] court [34:52] and [34:53] present [34:53] documents [34:54] which [34:54] pertain [34:55] to [34:55] the [34:55] existence [34:55] and [34:56] identity [34:56] of [34:57] the [34:57] subject [34:57] accounts [34:57] and [34:58] also [34:58] to [34:59] the [34:59] accounts [35:00] the [35:00] contents [35:01] found [35:01] therein. [35:03] I [35:03] just [35:03] move [35:03] forward. [35:04] Given [35:04] the [35:05] existence [35:05] and [35:05] propriety [35:06] of [35:06] the [35:06] subpoenas [35:07] the [35:07] evidence [35:08] procured [35:08] through [35:09] the [35:09] same [35:09] should [35:10] have [35:10] been [35:10] duly [35:10] considered [35:11] by [35:11] the [35:11] lower [35:12] courts. [35:13] This [35:13] court [35:13] cannot [35:14] agree [35:14] with [35:15] the [35:15] court [35:15] of [35:15] appeals [35:15] supposition [35:16] that [35:17] the [35:17] examination [35:17] of [35:18] the [35:18] respondents [35:18] bank [35:19] accounts [35:19] was [35:20] but [35:20] a [35:20] mere [35:20] fishing [35:21] expedition [35:22] to [35:22] pin [35:23] liability [35:23] on [35:24] them. [35:26] Next, [35:26] the [35:27] defense [35:28] repeatedly [35:29] cites [35:30] a number [35:30] of [35:30] laws [35:31] to [35:32] claim [35:32] that [35:32] the [35:33] requested [35:33] information [35:34] and [35:34] documents [35:35] that [35:35] we [35:35] are [35:36] asking [35:36] from [35:36] this [35:36] court [35:37] for [35:38] the [35:38] issue [35:38] on [35:38] sub [35:38] sub [35:39] pinna [35:39] are [35:40] confidential. [35:41] Sabi [35:42] po nila [35:42] confidential [35:43] daw [35:43] ito [35:44] sa ilalim [35:44] ng [35:44] Republic [35:45] Act [35:45] 1405. [35:46] Sabi [35:47] po nila [35:47] confidential [35:48] daw [35:48] ito [35:48] sa ilalim [35:49] ng [35:49] Anti [35:49] Money [35:50] Laundering [35:50] Act, [35:51] pati [35:51] ang [35:51] National [35:52] Internal [35:52] Revenue [35:53] Code, [35:54] pati [35:54] ang [35:54] Data [35:55] Privacy [35:55] Act [35:56] ay [35:57] confidential [35:57] din. [35:58] Pero [36:00] kung [36:00] titignan [36:01] po [36:01] natin [36:01] klaro [36:03] po [36:03] at [36:03] malinaw [36:04] po [36:04] sa [36:04] amin [36:05] ang [36:05] batas [36:06] at [36:06] ang [36:06] utos [36:07] ng [36:07] saligang [36:08] batas [36:08] sa [36:09] impeachment [36:09] court [36:10] na ito. [36:12] You [36:12] have [36:12] the [36:13] sole [36:13] exclusive [36:14] power [36:15] to [36:15] determine [36:16] an [36:16] impeachable [36:17] offense [36:17] and [36:18] that [36:18] includes [36:19] the [36:20] power [36:20] to [36:21] find [36:21] out, [36:22] ferret [36:23] the [36:23] entire [36:23] truth [36:24] and [36:24] make [36:24] your [36:25] decision [36:25] on [36:26] that [36:26] basis. [36:27] I [36:28] will [36:28] not [36:28] dwell [36:28] on [36:29] the [36:29] exception [36:30] to [36:30] Republic [36:30] Act [36:31] 1405. [36:31] that's [36:32] very [36:32] clear. [36:33] There's [36:33] an [36:33] exception [36:34] for [36:34] impeachment. [36:35] Pero [36:35] paano [36:36] naman [36:36] po [36:36] yung [36:37] sinasabi [36:37] nilang [36:37] Section [36:38] 8A [36:39] ng [36:39] Anti-Money [36:40] Laundering [36:41] Law? [36:42] If [36:43] you [36:43] read [36:43] that [36:44] law, [36:45] particularly [36:45] that [36:46] provision, [36:47] it [36:47] clearly [36:48] refers [36:48] to [36:49] prohibiting [36:50] leaks [36:50] by [36:51] members [36:52] of the [36:52] Anti-Money [36:53] Laundering [36:53] Council. [36:54] It [36:55] never [36:55] was [36:56] intended [36:56] to [36:57] short [36:57] circuit [36:58] the [36:59] impeachment [37:00] process [37:00] or [37:01] limit [37:02] the [37:02] powers [37:03] of [37:03] this [37:03] honorable [37:04] court [37:04] to [37:05] find [37:05] out [37:06] the [37:06] truth. [37:07] Ganon [37:08] din [37:08] po [37:08] ang [37:09] nakalagay [37:09] sa [37:09] ating [37:10] National [37:10] Internal [37:11] Revenue [37:12] Code. [37:13] Sabi po [37:13] ng [37:14] Defense, [37:14] there's [37:14] nothing [37:15] that [37:15] allows [37:16] these [37:17] documents [37:18] to be [37:19] made [37:19] public. [37:20] I [37:20] cite [37:20] Section [37:20] 71 [37:21] NIRC. [37:25] After [37:25] the [37:25] assessment [37:25] shall [37:26] have been [37:26] made, [37:27] I'll [37:27] just [37:27] move [37:27] forward, [37:29] the [37:30] returns [37:30] together [37:30] with [37:31] any [37:31] corrections [37:31] shall [37:32] be [37:32] filed [37:32] in [37:32] the [37:32] office [37:33] of [37:33] the [37:33] commissioner [37:34] and [37:34] I [37:34] quote, [37:35] and [37:35] shall [37:36] constitute [37:36] public [37:37] records [37:38] and be [37:38] open to [37:39] inspection [37:39] as such [37:40] upon the [37:41] order of [37:42] the [37:42] president. [37:42] And [37:43] in fact, [37:44] during the [37:44] corona [37:45] impeachment [37:45] trial, [37:47] the [37:47] president [37:47] at that [37:48] time [37:48] did [37:49] order [37:49] and [37:50] that [37:50] is [37:51] why [37:51] this [37:51] court [37:51] admitted [37:52] the [37:53] BIR [37:53] documents. [37:57] Your [37:57] Honors, [37:59] madaling [38:00] sabihin [38:00] na [38:00] confidential [38:01] ang [38:02] ilang [38:03] impormasyon [38:03] at [38:04] dokumento. [38:05] Madaling [38:06] magturo [38:06] ng [38:07] batas. [38:09] Pero [38:09] ang [38:09] hinahanap [38:10] po [38:10] ng [38:10] impeachment [38:11] court [38:11] ngayon [38:12] at [38:12] sa [38:12] mga [38:13] susunod [38:13] na [38:13] araw, [38:15] linggo [38:15] at [38:15] buwan [38:15] ay [38:16] ang [38:17] katotohanan [38:17] at [38:18] ang [38:18] layunin [38:19] ay [38:20] makamit [38:20] ang [38:21] pananagutan. [38:24] Confidentiality, [38:25] Your [38:26] Honor, [38:26] should not [38:27] be the [38:28] prevailing [38:28] principle [38:29] in this [38:30] proceeding. [38:33] Hindi po [38:33] confidential [38:34] ang [38:35] katotohanan. [38:36] Maraming [38:36] salamat po. [38:39] Thank you, [38:40] Representative [38:41] the Honorable [38:42] Chell [38:42] Jokno. [38:44] Attorney [38:44] po, [38:45] a [38:45] counsel [38:45] for [38:46] respondent [38:46] is [38:46] recognized [38:47] for his [38:47] rebuttal. [38:48] Sir, [38:48] you have [38:49] 13 [38:49] minutes. [38:50] Thank you, [38:50] sir. [38:51] I will [38:51] not take [38:51] up the [38:52] entire [38:52] time [38:52] to [38:53] expedite [38:53] matters. [38:55] Your [38:55] Honors, [38:55] I respect, [38:56] of course, [38:56] the arguments [38:57] put forth [38:58] by the [38:59] distinguished [38:59] opposing [39:00] counsel. [39:01] But when [39:01] it comes [39:02] to due [39:02] process, [39:03] Your [39:03] Honors, [39:04] I think [39:04] it's [39:05] beyond [39:05] debate [39:06] that due [39:07] process [39:07] must be [39:08] observed [39:09] in every [39:09] stage of [39:10] the [39:10] proceedings. [39:11] And [39:11] aside from [39:12] that, [39:13] due [39:13] process [39:13] requires, [39:14] Your [39:14] Honor, [39:15] that we [39:15] also respect [39:16] the protections [39:17] afforded by [39:18] law [39:18] on the [39:19] respondent. [39:20] Your [39:20] Honors, [39:21] what the [39:22] distinguished [39:23] opposing [39:23] counsel said, [39:24] the Supreme [39:27] Court said, [39:28] But, [39:29] Your [39:29] Honors, [39:29] the Supreme [39:31] Court [39:32] in Duterte [39:32] v. [39:32] House [39:33] of [39:33] Representatives [39:34] that the [39:35] impeachable [39:36] offense [39:37] is an [39:38] act [39:38] or [39:39] omission [39:39] that is [39:40] committed [39:40] by a [39:41] public [39:41] officer [39:42] while [39:42] occupying [39:43] an [39:44] impeachable [39:44] office, [39:45] it's not [39:46] possible to [39:47] use the [39:48] one-third [39:51] mode [39:51] but it's [39:54] not applicable [39:55] that's [39:57] that's [39:58] the definition. [39:59] Your [39:59] Honors, [40:00] in fact, [40:01] in that [40:01] decision, [40:02] which I [40:03] failed to [40:03] mention [40:04] earlier, [40:05] the [40:06] acts [40:07] or [40:07] omissions [40:07] must be [40:08] done [40:08] in [40:08] relation [40:09] to the [40:10] office [40:10] because [40:11] that's [40:11] the purpose [40:12] of [40:13] impeachment. [40:14] Next, [40:15] Your [40:15] Honors, [40:16] the [40:17] saying, [40:19] that [40:20] there's [40:20] prohibitions [40:22] against [40:33] disclosure [40:34] under the [40:35] law. [40:35] If we [40:36] will [40:36] make [40:36] a [40:38] court [40:38] process, [40:39] even [40:39] an [40:39] impeachment [40:40] court, [40:40] can [40:41] issue [40:41] a [40:41] subpoena [40:42] to [40:42] thwart [40:42] those [40:43] provisions, [40:44] it's [40:45] as if, [40:45] Your [40:45] Honor, [40:46] we are [40:46] doing [40:47] judicial [40:47] legislation [40:48] here [40:49] because [40:49] a [40:50] judicial [40:50] issuance [40:51] can [40:51] easily [40:52] repeal [40:52] for the [40:53] time [40:53] being [40:53] that [40:54] provision [40:54] or [40:54] at [40:55] least [40:55] suspend [40:55] Your [40:56] Honor, [40:56] maybe [40:56] not [40:56] repeal, [40:57] properly, [40:58] the [40:58] proper [40:58] word [40:58] might [40:59] be [40:59] suspend [40:59] that [41:00] provision [41:00] of [41:01] law. [41:02] I've [41:02] never [41:02] heard [41:02] about [41:03] that, [41:03] Your [41:03] Honors. [41:05] And [41:05] then, [41:05] lastly, [41:06] Your [41:06] Honors, [41:08] two points, [41:12] I agree [41:16] under the [41:16] tax code [41:17] that [41:18] section [41:18] 71 [41:18] provides [41:19] that if [41:20] the [41:20] president [41:20] orders, [41:22] then [41:22] nawawala [41:23] na po [41:23] yung [41:23] confidentiality. [41:25] However, [41:25] Your [41:25] Honors, [41:26] even given [41:27] that there's [41:28] an order [41:28] from the [41:29] president, [41:30] I think [41:30] we should [41:30] still think [41:31] about [41:31] relevance. [41:32] Para [41:32] saan ba [41:33] ina-examine [41:34] yung mga [41:34] dokumento? [41:36] Hindi ba [41:36] para sa [41:37] impeachment [41:37] proceeding? [41:38] Hindi po [41:39] namin [41:39] sinasabi [41:40] na kung [41:40] sakaling [41:41] nagkamali [41:41] man ang [41:42] vice [41:42] presidente, [41:43] kung [41:43] sakaling [41:44] may [41:44] paglabag [41:44] man sa [41:45] batas [41:45] ang [41:45] vice [41:45] presidente [41:46] noon, [41:47] ay [41:47] hindi [41:47] na [41:48] pwedeng [41:48] maparusahan. [41:49] Marami [41:50] naman [41:50] pong [41:50] paraan. [41:51] You [41:51] can [41:51] file [41:51] cases [41:52] against [41:52] the [41:52] vice [41:53] president [41:53] for [41:54] those [41:54] infractions, [41:55] preterm [41:56] infractions. [41:57] Pero pag [41:58] impeachment [41:58] pong [41:59] pinag-uusapan, [42:00] we are [42:01] limited to [42:02] what impeachable [42:02] offenses are. [42:04] And again, [42:05] the Supreme [42:05] Court is [42:06] clear about [42:06] that. [42:07] Your [42:07] Honors, [42:08] there's [42:08] also a [42:10] repeated [42:10] citation [42:11] of the [42:11] Corona [42:12] case. [42:13] But we [42:13] would just [42:13] like to [42:14] point out [42:14] that the [42:15] Corona [42:15] case [42:16] was [42:17] tried, [42:19] decided [42:19] upon [42:20] way [42:21] before [42:21] Duterte [42:22] versus [42:23] H.O.R. [42:24] And [42:24] Your [42:25] Honors, [42:27] since [42:28] it was [42:28] decided [42:29] before [42:29] Duterte [42:30] versus [42:31] H.O.R., [42:32] the Supreme [42:32] Court [42:33] was fully [42:34] cognizant [42:35] of what [42:35] happened [42:36] in the [42:37] Corona [42:37] trial. [42:37] And [42:38] yet, [42:38] Your [42:38] Honors, [42:39] they [42:39] impose [42:40] these [42:40] guidelines. [42:42] In [42:42] fact, [42:42] the line [42:43] itself [42:43] in the [42:44] Duterte [42:44] versus [42:44] H.O.R. [42:45] is [42:45] we [42:45] clarify, [42:46] I [42:47] quote, [42:47] we [42:47] clarify [42:48] the [42:48] constitutional [42:49] requirements [42:50] of [42:51] impeachment. [42:52] At [42:52] kasama [42:53] doon [42:53] yung [42:53] nabanggit [42:54] namin [42:54] kanina [42:55] on [42:55] what [42:56] constitutes [42:57] an [42:58] impeachable [42:59] offense. [42:59] And [42:59] that [43:00] is [43:00] very [43:00] clear. [43:01] Marahil [43:02] sinasabi [43:03] natin [43:03] na [43:04] yun [43:04] ay [43:04] isang [43:04] obiter. [43:05] Pero [43:06] Your [43:06] Honors, [43:07] paano [43:07] magiging [43:08] obiter [43:08] yun? [43:09] Kung [43:09] yun [43:09] mismo [43:10] ang [43:11] itinakbo [43:12] ng [43:12] desisyon. [43:13] The [43:13] fact [43:14] that [43:15] the [43:15] one-year [43:15] bar [43:15] was [43:16] triggered [43:16] was [43:16] only [43:17] the [43:17] effect [43:17] of [43:18] not [43:19] abiding [43:20] by [43:20] the [43:21] due [43:21] process [43:21] clause [43:22] of [43:22] the [43:22] Constitution. [43:23] And [43:23] lastly, [43:24] again, [43:24] Your [43:24] Honors, [43:25] we do [43:26] not [43:26] disagree [43:27] with the [43:27] prosecution [43:28] in terms [43:28] of [43:29] accountability. [43:30] Again, [43:31] no one [43:31] is above [43:32] the law, [43:33] but no [43:33] one [43:33] should [43:34] also be [43:35] deprived [43:35] of the [43:36] protection [43:36] given by [43:38] law, [43:38] Your [43:38] Honors. [43:38] Thank [43:39] you.