Senate impeachment court discussed the impeachment rules and procedural standards

[0:00] The court will now proceed to dispose of some of the incidents that were brought up during the pretrial conference, [0:10] as well as other pending matters and motions. [0:15] First, on the sequence of the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment, [0:21] the pretrial order stated that the prosecution is a free hand to determine the sequence of the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment. [0:28] However, respondent will be similarly accorded the same right insofar as the presentation of their evidence and witnesses-in-chief is concerned. [0:39] May we now learn from the panel of prosecutors, what will be the sequence of presentation of the Articles of Impeachment that they intend to pursue? [0:54] Attorney Giacno is recognized. You may proceed, sir. [0:56] Thank you, Your Honor. The first article we will be presenting will be Article 4 on grave threats. [1:05] Second will be confidential funds, Article 1. [1:10] Third, bribery. That is Article 3. [1:14] And the fourth is unexplained wealth, Your Honors. That's Article 4. [1:22] No, 2. [1:22] I'm sorry, Article 2. I stand corrected. [1:26] So the sequence of presentations shall be Article 4, Article 1, Article 3, and then Article 2? [1:35] Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. [1:37] So I presume that beginning tomorrow, once we issue the subpoena for your first set of witnesses, you shall begin with Article 4? [1:46] Yes, Your Honor. [1:47] 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. [1:59] What is the pleasure of the Council for Respondent? [2:01] Thank you, Your Honor. [2:02] May I ask if the prosecution is ready to present its first witness today because the defense is ready today, Your Honor. [2:09] Julie noted. We will get to that later. [2:11] If, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, your Honor, please, if, your Honor, please, I just noticed that, um, Your Honor had already directed the Council for the Defense not to propound questions to the prosecution. [2:26] This is already the second time that she's doing that. [2:29] She appears to be assuming, 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. [2:39] Your Honor may comment. [2:40] The lady may comment. Council for Respondent may comment. [2:43] I take exception to that. Yes, Your Honor. I take exception to that manifestation of the good counsel. [2:48] In fact, the record would show, and if we can run the transcript back, my question was addressed to the presiding officer, Your Honor. [2:56] Let us move forward, gentlemen and lady. [3:00] Next item for us to dispense with, the witness disclosure rule. [3:05] The prosecution proposed a three-day witness disclosure rule. [3:11] The respondents proposed a five-day witness disclosure rule, but they understand the prosecution is amenable to the five-day witness disclosure rule. [3:20] Would that be correct, Representative John? [3:21] Yes, Your Honor. We are amenable to the five-day disclosure rule. [3:24] Chair, therefore, rules that insofar as disclosure to both, to either party of a witness to be presented, [3:30] not mentioned in the pre-trial order and or briefs of the parties shall be for five days. [3:39] 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, [3:48] we will ask the party presenting their case in chief to enumerate the witnesses they intend to present for the following week [3:56] with the corresponding motion for the request of issuance of subpoena to be submitted the day before or on Tuesday [4:03] 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. [4:12] It's ordered on the examination of a witness by more than one counsel as propounded or proposed by the prosecution. [4:23] The rules of the Senate are clear. Article 15 of the rules on impeachment states witnesses shall be examined by one person [4:32] on behalf of the party producing them and then cross-examined by one person on the other side. [4:40] The court therefore rules that as a rule only one person shall present a witness. [4:48] However, in the exigency of the delivery and administration of justice and under certain exceptions, [4:56] the court may allow more than one counsel to examine and or propound questions to a witness. [5:03] To cite an example just for the sake of the record. [5:05] If, for example, the panel of prosecutors disagrees with how the counsel for prosecutors is handling the case, [5:14] the panel of prosecutors or one of them can take over and that is but proper and should be allowed [5:20] and will therefore be considered as an exemption to that rule. [5:23] And other similar exigencies will be allowed in order to afford the orderly administration of justice and of these proceedings. [5:31] So ordered, insofar as the BIR box is concerned, this box was turned over to the Senate as part of the documents [5:52] including the articles of impeachment. [5:54] However, the court is not yet in custodia lehis of this box given that there is no lawful order issued by the court [6:02] 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. [6:12] The chair therefore orders that the BIR box, closed, sealed, and as it is received, [6:19] be sent back to the BIR or the Bureau of Internal Revenue without prejudice to any action that the court may take [6:26] if a motion will be filed by either party for the issuance of a subpoena and we shall await. [6:31] Action, if any, by the BIR Commissioner should that time come. [6:35] So ordered, insofar as the subpoena requested by the prosecution for the two NBI agents, [6:43] may I request the Clerk of Court to kindly read the motion for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum. [6:48] The prosecution, to the undersigned public prosecutors, respectfully requests the issuance of subpoenas ad testificandum. [7:05] Directing the following witnesses to appear and testify before the Honorable Impeachment Court on July 6, July 7, and July 8, 2026 at 2 p.m. [7:13] as their testimonies are material, relevant, and necessary to establish the allegations under Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment [7:20] as well as matters necessarily incidental thereto and for purposes of the identification and authentication of other evidence before the Impeachment Court. [7:29] Number 1, Attorney Jeremy C. Lotok, Regional Director, National Bureau of Investigation. [7:35] Number 2, John Mark Kalilung, Senior Agent, National Bureau of Investigation. [7:39] Respectfully submitted, cancel city for Paso City, July 1, 2026. [7:45] We are not in receipt of any reservation or objection on the part of the respondent, counsel for respondent rather. [7:52] However, Chair would like to ask the prosecutors, do you only request for a subpoena ad testificandum or a subpoena duces tecum as well? [8:03] If I understand the record, Your Honor, please, it is a subpoena both for ad testificandum and duces tecum. [8:14] The motion filed by the prosecutors is only for a subpoena ad testificandum. That's why the Chair is clarifying. [8:21] Your Honor. [8:23] I stand corrected, if Your Honor, please. It's just for ad testificandum. [8:27] Counsel for Respondent. [8:28] If I may, Your Honor, just to set the record state, the presiding officer earlier inquired or mentioned that the court is not in receipt of any objection from the respondent. [8:40] But just to set the record straight, the respondent has not received any copy of the request for a subpoena being mentioned today, Your Honor. [8:52] What 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. [9:08] 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. [9:19] The two witnesses against whom a 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. [9:34] 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 on these two NBI agents. [9:44] At this point, Your Honor, that's fine. We'll just place on record our objections as the testimonial evidence is presented. [9:52] Julie noted, Chair, hereby orders that the subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum be issued to the aforementioned two NBI agents contained in the motion filed by the Council for the Prosecutors. [10:12] 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. [10:29] 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, insofar as the next week's trial is concerned. [10:44] Now, insofar 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, ad testificandum and duces tecum, or just duces tecum, for the aforementioned documents. [11:08] The Clerk of Court may proceed. [11:09] Request for issuance of subpoena to the branch manager of the following banks. [11:21] Requiring him or her, or his or her authorized representative to submit to the clerk, [11:59] of the impeachment court, on or before 24 June 2026, at 9 AM, 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, [12:28] or jointly held, or jointly held by Sarah Z. Duterte, 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, [12:45] for the period, 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, [13:04] monthly, monthly bank statements, average daily balances, per calendar year, year-end balances, from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2025, [13:14] number three, all account and transaction records, ledgers, and journals, and similar instruments, from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2025, and, number four, [13:26] all other relevant bank documents, request for subpoena, to the Anti-Money Laundering Council, to Honorable Eli M. Remolona, Jr., Chairman, AMLC, to Attorney Ronel U. Benaventura, Executive Director, AMLC, [13:43] requiring him or her, or his or her authorized representative to submit to the Clerk of the Enforcement Court, on or before 24 June, 2026, at 9 a.m., [13:52] original or certified two copies of the following, number one, all reports of covert transactions, and suspicious transactions, filed by banks, [14:00] and all other financial institutions, and covert persons, required to submit covert transaction reports, and suspicious transaction reports, [14:08] to the AMLC, involving Sarah Duterte Carpio, and or Manassas R. Carpio, covering the period of 2006 to 2025, number two, [14:21] any and all investigation reports, or related reports, or documents, prepared by the AMLC, [14:27] covered transactions, or suspicious transactions, electronic copies, including Microsoft Excel files, [14:35] database extracts, or machine-readable formats of AMLC, CTRs, and STRs, for the period 2007 to 2025, [14:44] involving Sarah Duterte Carpio, and or Manassas R. Carpio. [14:50] Respectfully submitted, Kansas City for Pasay City, June 18, 2026. [14:54] Your Honor, may I comment? [14:56] If Your Honor, please, before the defense makes a comment, [15:00] just to obviate the proceedings and to facilitate the hearing today, if I may. [15:06] The chair has not recognized anyone yet. [15:08] May I be recognized, Your Honor? [15:11] Yes, the counsel for prosecutor. [15:24] If Your Honor, please. [15:25] The subpoena request that was just read by the Clerk of Court pertains to a request that the prosecution filed in early June, [15:34] where we had requested that the documents specified be brought to the Honorable Court on June 24. [15:41] Since that date has passed and no issue, no subpoena has been issued, [15:46] we had refiled just this afternoon a subpoena reiterating the same request, [15:53] and in the interest of justice and to allow the defense to comment, [15:57] or if they want, object to the request that we filed this afternoon, [16:02] perhaps if I may suggest, if Your Honor, please, that we provide the copy to the defense, [16:09] give them a period of time to submit their opposition or objection, [16:13] and as well the same period of time to the prosecution to reply before the Honorable Court rules on this request. [16:22] Is the motion for subpoena, do sestecum, and or ad testificandum that you filed today [16:29] exactly the same as what you filed before? [16:33] No, Your Honor. [16:33] It contains the same documents that we had requested earlier, [16:38] but there were some additional documents that were also mentioned in the request we filed this afternoon. [16:44] So you asked for additional documents? [16:48] Yes, Your Honor. [16:49] What does Council for Respondent say? [16:51] Your Honor, before I give my comment on the request for subpoena, [16:58] I thank the good Council for offering to provide us a copy of the request for subpoena, [17:06] but we would also ask that we be provided with the June 2026 copies of the request for subpoena, [17:13] as well as the new one that the Council mentioned today. [17:16] But just for the record, it would seem to me that the request for subpoena covers documents involving years [17:26] from 2006 up to 2025, and again, just for the record, [17:36] this would seem to violate the Duterte versus HOR ruling, [17:40] which very clearly states that the impeachment must be only for those acts or omissions [17:49] within the impeachable years and terms and office of the official. [17:54] But nonetheless, Your Honor, just so we're able to fully ventilate whatever objections or comments [18:00] that we may have on this request, and considering that for today and in the disclosure made by the prosecution, [18:06] they will begin with Article 4, [18:08] and all these documents seem to pertain to Article 2, [18:11] then we will ask for 10 days to file our comment on this request for subpoena. [18:18] And congratulate this move of the impeachment court to make all of the evidence available to the public. [18:24] May we know in how many days will the Clerk of Court make this evidence available to the public, Mr. President? [18:35] They've started, but they have not completed it yet. [18:37] As Senator Judge Marco said, the documents are voluminous. [18:43] I think it covers until 9Q, if I'm not mistaken, initially, when it was marked, about more than 10,000 documents. [18:55] Mr. President, of course, in the same way if this is made available to the public six months from now or one year from now, [19:02] that defeats the purpose of having this made public, so... [19:06] No, no, no, that will not happen. [19:07] Yes. May we get a commitment from the Clerk of Court as to the delay by which presented evidence is made public, Mr. President? [19:18] No, no. [19:19] Let me clarify, Your Honor. [19:35] I believe the articles of impeachment as well as its annexes have been uploaded. [19:43] The answer as well as its annexes have been uploaded. [19:47] And most of the exhibits that were marked, not all, are annexes of either the impeachment complaint and or the answer. [19:56] Can the Chair give you an update before the week is over as to a realistic timetable to upload in real time already? [20:06] Again, except for the journal, which we need to approve. [20:09] So we cannot upload the Wednesday transcript or journal until we meet again on Monday and approve the journal of Wednesday. [20:18] So that would be the only delay, if at all, in uploading it. [20:21] That should be the only delay. [20:22] So if I take it correctly, Mr. President, the Clerk of Court will endeavor to upload all of the presented evidence in real time, [20:32] at the soonest possible time, except for the journal, which needs approval of the body. [20:36] That is correct, Your Honor. [20:37] Thank you, Mr. President. [20:39] Senator Judge Cayetano, Alan? [20:44] Presiding Senator Judge. [20:46] Just a clarification. [20:48] So no problem with complete transparency with any public records. [20:53] But when we talk about evidence, precisely that's why we want a fair trial due process. [21:03] There's a process wherein the prosecution shall present evidence, then they will offer it. [21:11] And then if there's a question as to the relevance or if it is prohibited. [21:16] For example, if an evidence presented is a fruit of the poisonous tree, will we upload that? [21:24] But we haven't decided yet here whether we will accept it as evidence or not. [21:32] So let me tell you first which ones, personally, I don't have a problem with. [21:37] I don't have a problem with the public records in general being completely transparent. [21:43] I have no problem with Senator Judges given time to review everything. [21:50] And I assume we're all trained to consider only the evidence that is later on admitted, offered and admitted. [22:00] So my problem is that, for example, if someone offers now, between now and the trial, wiretapped recordings, [22:11] do we upload that when we have not made a ruling yet on that? [22:16] So I just want to be clarified on that. [22:17] The Chair will clarify. [22:19] As the Chair said earlier, only the pleadings, motions, and memoranda filed by the parties, [22:25] and insofar as the exhibits marked are concerned, [22:28] only those attached as annexes to either the articles of impeachment and or the answer to the impeachment complaint. [22:34] Insofar as documentary evidence is concerned, [22:39] it will only be admitted and, if at all, admitted by the Court and published once formal offer has been made. [22:47] Until such time, we will not publish any documentary evidence even after being identified by a witness [22:55] because it is the formal offer that will determine its admission by the Court after the party rests. [23:01] Just to clarify, same with if we do issue a subpoena. [23:09] The subject matter of the subpoena will not be published, but the motion for the issuance of a subpoena will. [23:14] Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. [23:17] Thank you, Your Honor. [23:18] Senator Judge Irwin Tulfo is recognized. [23:22] What is your pleasure, sir? [23:26] Thank you, Mr. President. [23:27] Thank you, Mr. President. [23:29] I just want to be clarified. [23:31] I need a clarification, Mr. President. [23:34] With regards to these Anti-Money Laundering Council documents or pieces of evidence that will be submitted here, [23:42] will it be okay if we tackle this in public or shall we tackle evidence from the AMLOC during an executive session? [23:51] I believe this is under the bank secrecy law or we can tackle it because this is an impeachment court, Mr. President. [24:01] Mr. President, what we will debate upon, if at all, on the scheduled date to be set by the Chair is a debate on whether or not to issue the subpoena, [24:13] do ses tecum ad testificandum in relation to AMLC records, not the actual records yet. [24:21] Once it is granted by the court and is issued, it will have to be presented by the parties. [24:29] We cannot tackle and discuss it in executive session because anything and everything discussed in executive session cannot be revealed to the public and used by this court. [24:41] Secondly, it can only be, if at all, revealed by a unanimous vote or consent by all the senator judges, [24:50] which effectively hog ties that piece of evidence if we discuss and talk about it only in executive session. [24:59] Whether or not it is to be made public, whether or not it can be legally obtained, [25:04] will be decided by this court after hearing the oral arguments of the parties. [25:08] Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer. [25:13] What is the pleasure of Senator Judge Villanueva? [25:16] Yes, Mr. President. [25:17] Considering that we have been tackling and asking of pieces of evidence, [25:25] I think there's a lot of questions with regard to the Mahiwagang BIR box, Mr. President. [25:33] Your clarification lang po, where is it now and when are we going to transfer it to the Bureau of Internal Revenue? [25:45] It is with the Clerk of Court in the office of the Secretary General as instructed by the Chair. [25:51] It should be sent back to the BIR by tomorrow morning in the condition that it was received, meaning sealed. [25:59] The same. Thank you, Mr. President. [26:01] Any other manifestations or motions on the part of the Senator Judges? [26:10] Senator Judge Antiveros is recognized. What is your pleasure, ma'am? [26:15] Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer. [26:17] Just to make a brief statement in support of the ruling recently proclaimed by the presiding officer on executive sessions. [26:29] Thank you, if I may, Mr. Presiding Officer. [26:31] And just to add a little bit of that, Mr. Presiding Officer, thank you. [26:38] The executive session is only for Congress acting in its usual legislative functions. [26:45] And impeachment trials do not contemplate executive sessions. [26:50] So, I join with the presiding officer in the call that he made, which I believe is the default also of this impeachment trial court for transparency as a general rule and as a default. [27:03] Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer. [27:05] Thank you, Senator Judge Antiveros. [27:07] Before the court adjourns, Chair directs the Clerk of Court to kindly make sure that the subpoena for the two NBI agents will be issued this afternoon and duly received and entrusts it to the Council for Prosecutors to make sure of the attendance of their two witnesses tomorrow. [27:25] Likewise, the Chair reminds the Clerk of Court to furnish, right after we adjourn, Council for Respondents with a copy of the requests for the issuance of subpoena thus far submitted and filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court. [27:42] So, ordered, there being no other business to discuss, the trial is hereby adjourned until 2 p.m. of Tuesday, tomorrow, July 7, 2026. [27:53] Thank you.