Headstart: Rep. Gerville Luistro on what to expect on plenary impeachment vote, Senate trial — ANC

[0:00] All right, joining us this morning is House Justice Committee Chairperson, Batangas Representative Jerville Luistro. [0:07] Representative Luistro, magandang umaga ma'am. [0:12] All right, I think you're on mute. [0:18] Good morning and thank you for having me here again. [0:22] Good morning once more. [0:23] I want you to react coming from just what the Vice President said. [0:28] Yung sinasabi ng ilang tapos na daw ang laban, huwag sabihin na tapos na ang laban. [0:34] Ang tanong ko sa inyo, tapos na ba ang laban? [0:37] Well, ever since I do not want to preempt itong mga paparating pa, no? [0:44] So in a way, I wish to agree with the Vice President na hindi pa naman talaga tapos. [0:50] As a matter of fact, meron pang plenary vote. [0:54] And after the plenary vote, if the House of Representatives will affirm the findings of the Justice Committee, [1:02] we know for a fact na itra-transmit pa ito for trial before the Senate. [1:08] At doon sa Senado, magkakaroon ng pagdinig. [1:11] Their decision will be either convicted or acquitted. [1:15] I think what the Vice President was reacting to, yung tapos na, [1:21] is that the House will be able to come up with at least 106 votes. [1:27] So we have Representative Terry Redon now saying that he believes that they'll be able to come up with 215 votes. [1:37] At least, he says it can be achieved the same as last year's. [1:42] But at one point, Representative Chua said that he was admitting it was hard that they lacked votes. [1:49] So ang tanong ko ma'am, ano ba talaga ang sitwasyon? [1:52] So ganito, no? [1:54] If Terry is saying that 215 is possible, [2:00] Joel Chua is saying that it's hard to earn the number, [2:05] siguro from my end, I would rather wait until the plenary vote. [2:10] It's really hard to speak about the possible number of votes, Karen. [2:17] Because ang daming factors eh, na pwedeng i-consider ng mga Kongs. [2:24] First and foremost, I don't know if they appreciate the evidence the same way that the justice members did. [2:31] Second, we have to consider also the party leadership's position. [2:36] Meron diyang lakas, merong NPC, NP, may PFP, may liberal. [2:43] Well, we don't know what's the position of the party leadership. [2:47] As a matter of fact, ang naririnig ko nga most of the time, conscience vote eh. [2:51] Which means na hindi makikialam yung party leadership, no? [2:56] And of course, hindi natin maiaalis pa rin yung political interest ng members of House of Representatives. [3:04] Considering, now it's 2026, 2028 will be the next national election. [3:09] Has it changed? The National Unity Party, that's a major bloc in the House, [3:18] they've already said at one point that they will not support the impeachment of the vice president. [3:24] When you look at other party leaderships, has their stand changed from the first impeachment? [3:32] Well, I saw a lot of NUP members in the voting of the Justice Committee. [3:42] So yung statement ni DS Puno before, that they will not support the impeachment process, [3:48] I think medyo na downgrade. [3:50] In a way that they are living it to the conscience, the judgment, the prerogative of the individual member of the party [3:59] as to whether or not they will support the impeachment process, no? [4:03] I understand, in the past, nagsalita si DS Puno ng ganyan. [4:09] Pero in the recent voting before the Justice Committee, I saw a huge number of NUP members. [4:16] So I think it's the conscience vote still, which is being maintained by NUP. [4:23] But of course, this is just my observation. We cannot speak for NUP. [4:27] Because tama kayo, at one point, the announcement of NUP before, they said there was no new evidence, right? [4:36] They said it was weak. [4:37] But it seems that in the last hearing, new evidence has come to light. [4:42] That's correct, Karen. [4:45] And I think that's one of the important things that was considered by, I believe, a huge number of House members, [4:56] which actually changed their position. [5:00] Without them admitting it expressly, I personally observed na malaki ang naging impact noong second hearing. [5:10] The hearing which provided the avenue for the disclosure of the AMLAC report, [5:16] the 6.77 billion covered in suspicious transactions. [5:21] As well as the SAL-N, for me, Karen, I observed malaki ang naging impact nito in as far as the position of the House members is concerned. [5:32] Because in the first impeachment complaint, the issue with the bank accounts and the SAL-N was not thoroughly, [5:40] kumbaga it was not thoroughly discussed. Walang full insight noon doon. [5:45] You are correct, Karen, because you will remember the impeachment back in the 19th Congress was filed under the second mode. [5:55] That is, by signature of at least one-third, where the referral to the Justice Committee is not a requirement. [6:04] So there was no opportunity, actually, for the House of Representatives to discuss, [6:11] see the evidence in as far as the allegations of unexplained wealth is concerned, no? [6:17] Unlike in the cases of confidential fund, bribery, [6:22] ito nakita natin dito sa inquiry in aid of legislation ng good government and public accountability. [6:29] So you are correct when you said that this is the first time na nakita ng House members [6:35] and even the viewing public, the pieces of evidence which are supportive of the allegations of the unexplained wealth. [6:43] That is the very big difference between the first impeachment in 19th Congress [6:47] and the second impeachment under the 20th Congress. [6:51] So now there's a unanimous 55 coming from the House Justice Committee panel. [6:57] All you need are 51 votes, technically to reach the threshold of 106 for the House to impeach her. [7:06] Is there an active, is there an active lobby? [7:11] We have to remember an impeachment process is both evidentiary and it's also political in nature globally. [7:18] Globally, so it wouldn't be surprising if, let's say, administration representatives would be lobbying for a vote to impeach. [7:30] But the 51 right now, so is there an active movement, so to speak, to gain the 51? [7:39] Well, I don't observe any kasi Karen yung encounter ko is limited to the active members of the Justice Committee [7:51] and we know already the position of the Justice Members. [7:55] Ang sabi ko nga, before the voting on probable cause, we are investigators, we are impartial, we are independent. [8:03] But after the voting of probable cause, officially may position na ang Justice Committee. [8:09] So with regards to the 51 other members of the House, who should complete the required threshold, [8:19] no, the threshold of 106 House members, I don't know really what efforts, if ever, [8:26] are being exerted by parties concerned in this impeachment process. [8:31] What about the House Speaker? [8:33] Where does he stand on this? [8:35] Because he will vote, right? [8:37] He has to vote. [8:38] Yes, he has to vote because he is one of the 300, what's this, 318 members of the House of Representatives. [8:50] I mean, can the House Speaker choose to abstain or are there rules? [8:53] Anyone. [8:54] Actually, anyone can choose to abstain, di ba, pag nagpapaboto tayo. [8:59] Those who are in favor, those who are not in favor, those who abstain. [9:03] So it is always a prerogative, an option to abstain from the voting, no? [9:10] Kami ni Speaker kasi pag magkausap kami ni Speaker, it is limited only to the process. [9:16] We never discuss really about the position. [9:20] He will be asking what will be the next step. [9:23] Ganyan lang, no? [9:24] And how are the members? [9:28] Ganyan lang, what should be the possible date? [9:31] Pero we never discuss about his position about this impeachment. [9:35] So I also look forward to see what will be the position of Speaker Bojidi when we vote in the plenary. [9:42] Because I want to ask you, there's a super majority in the lower house. [9:47] In fact, the president's own son, right, is one of the senior leaders of the lower house right now. [9:56] He is our majority leader. [9:58] Exactly. [9:59] What will it look like to the president, frankly, if this Congress can't get the votes? [10:07] Well, we cannot tell you, Karen, whether we will get the one-third or we will get the one-third, no? [10:16] Whether or not we will get the one-third that is yet to be seen when we vote in the plenary. [10:23] But what I wish to point out is, even if the presidential son is the majority leader of the 20th Congress, [10:34] the individual members have actually the privilege, the prerogative, to make their own stand, [10:43] notwithstanding the position of the majority bloc, notwithstanding the position of the party leadership, no? [10:52] As a matter of fact, makakakita ka dyan, Karen, eh. [10:56] Kunyari, isang partido, they are 40. [10:59] You will be seeing 30 of them supporting the impeachment, [11:02] and you will be seeing 10 of them not supporting the impeachment. [11:06] So, bagaman it is correct that it is a political process, [11:10] the position of the party leadership is significant. [11:13] At the end of the day, it is the judgment of the individual member, eh. [11:17] So, I don't think that the fact that the presidential son is the majority leader [11:24] is really a matter that should bother the Filipino people, no? [11:30] Because at the end of the day, conscience vote, eh. [11:34] Judgment ng individual members. [11:36] So, it is really how you appreciate this impeachment process. [11:40] That should be the basis on voting during the plenary. [11:43] That's quite ideal. [11:45] But then you already have representatives who've voiced out that they're cautious [11:51] to vote for the impeachment because of 2028, [11:55] and that's not necessarily conscience. [11:57] Conscience means you are fearless. [12:00] But the way it sounds now is conscience won't be the big issue. [12:06] It will be political at some point. [12:09] Tama ka dun, Karen. [12:10] As a matter of fact, there are a lot of factors, [12:12] kagaya ng binanggit ko na kanina, no? [12:14] One is how they appreciate the evidence [12:18] because we don't know if they appreciate the same way that justice members did. [12:23] Second, the party leadership's position. [12:25] And third, the fact that 2028 will be the next election. [12:30] But apart from these three, no? [12:33] Kapag boboto ka na, [12:35] I think ang makoconsider mo talaga is what your conscience dictates, eh. [12:42] Given these circumstances, [12:44] what do you think is best for the country, best for the Filipino people? [12:48] So, these three, bagaman they are significant, no? [12:54] At the end of the day, [12:55] ang mananaig pa rin diyan is the judgment of the individual members. [12:59] Yeah. [13:00] And the question is, [13:01] is the judgment of the individual members, [13:05] will they decide out of fear? [13:07] Or will they decide out of sheer conscience? [13:13] I think when we say it's a conscience vote, [13:15] it depends on what is important to the individual members. [13:20] If what matters to them is the best interest of the nation, [13:25] siguro dapat mawala yung fear na consequence ng kanilang vote. [13:29] If what matters to them is only the interest of the Filipino people, [13:34] siguro ang titignan nila yung merit ng impeachment complaint, no? [13:38] And perhaps what they will need to see is the future of this nation, no? [13:46] When they vote. [13:48] What about Representative Paulo Duterte's claim [13:51] that there's pressure to vote in favor of the impeachment? [13:56] And he also claims that after this, [13:59] SAL ends will now be weaponized against politicians. [14:02] Well, I did not or I do not experience any of the pressures [14:13] that Kong Polong Duterte mentions in his statement, no? [14:19] But at least, Karen, I can speak only for myself. [14:22] Walang kumausap, walang nakiusap, walang pumilit, no? [14:29] So, lahat ng ginagawa ko as chairperson of the Justice Committee [14:34] springs from what I appreciate as a duty from the Constitution, [14:39] which I really cannot decline, I cannot disregard. [14:44] But in as far as what he is saying, that there's a lot of pressure, [14:49] in as far as I am concerned, I vehemently deny that. [14:52] Okay. So, May 11, can you take us, it is now May 5, [14:57] there are three more, how do I say it, is it working calendar days? [15:02] The calendar days have now been so confusing. [15:04] Wednesday to Friday, how would you define that now in the House? [15:08] Anong tawag doon? [15:09] Kasi weekend daman, Saturday, Sunday. [15:12] Anong tawag po nyan yun yun yun yun? [15:13] Ang sabi lang naman ay from referral, [15:18] the plenary should be able to vote within the period of 10, [15:22] 10 session days, no? [15:24] Okay. [15:25] 10 session days. [15:26] But we have to consider the Supreme Court decision [15:28] in Duterte versus House of Representatives. [15:31] Ang sabi nila dyan, before the plenary vote, [15:35] the House members should be provided with a copy of the committee report, [15:40] the resolution, and the articles of impeachment, [15:43] most especially the articles of impeachment and the attached evidence. [15:46] They should be given reasonable time to read and study the same [15:51] before the plenary vote. [15:53] That's part of due process, no? [15:55] Na napag-aralan. [15:56] So if we were able to transmit it yesterday, [16:02] ang sabi ng Supreme Court, reasonable period. [16:05] Wala namang sinabi na ano eh, definite number of days, no? [16:09] So from yesterday, it will be routed to the bills and index. [16:15] The bills and index will be, no, [16:18] the bills and index will include it in the order of business [16:21] and the plenary, and then the plenary will refer it to the rules. [16:24] And then today, that should be included among the agenda [16:29] of the rules committee, no? [16:30] And they should be able to refer it back to the plenary [16:35] so that the plenary can transmit a copy of all these documents [16:41] to the House members, including the respondent vice president [16:45] and the complainant. [16:46] So if that will happen today, [16:49] then we have Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. [16:54] I think five days is reasonable period [16:57] for the House members to be able to read and study, you know? [17:00] So for me lang, ha? [17:01] Because this will be a decision of the plenary. [17:03] But from my perspective as the justice chair, [17:06] given the five-day period na ibibigay natin [17:09] to the House members to study, [17:11] I think by May 11, the plenary should be ready to vote. [17:15] Yeah, yeah. [17:16] And the longer it takes, [17:18] there's more danger of actually the fear of lobbying. [17:22] I mean, both, right? [17:23] Both sides are claiming fears of lobbying. [17:27] That's exactly it. [17:28] The faster that you're able to vote on it, the better. [17:32] Now, ang tanong ko, ma'am, [17:34] does it mean that you've nanakopya na ito? [17:37] Because ilan po kayo? [17:38] 300? [17:39] How many are all of you? [17:40] For 318. [17:42] 318? [17:43] Does it mean that at least 200 plus copies have now been printed? [17:47] That's a lot. [17:48] Well, it should be the plenary, no? [17:53] After pang ma-refer ng rules, [17:55] back to the plenary, [17:56] the plenary should order, [17:59] should direct the SECGEN, [18:00] Secretary General, [18:02] to provide copies to all the House members. [18:03] I know it's a lot. [18:05] It's 318. [18:06] Yeah. [18:07] I understand na in-adopt namin yung electronic rule, [18:12] di ba? [18:12] Yeah. [18:12] Where the institution is allowed to provide copies via email, [18:17] via online, no? [18:18] I was gonna say, [18:19] I mean, it makes more sense. [18:22] I understand na nung unang panahon, right? [18:25] Even if it was a different mode, [18:26] nung panahon kay Renato Corona, [18:28] kay ERAP, [18:29] if they had to distribute, [18:31] that would be nakapapel. [18:33] Pero today, [18:33] the House Justice Committee report [18:35] that was voted on [18:37] can just be sent to everybody's email. [18:40] That would just take a few hours. [18:43] Yeah. [18:44] You're correct about that, Karen. [18:45] As a matter of fact, [18:46] we adopted that in the Justice Committee. [18:48] That was our practice. [18:50] Kaya, [18:50] even to the parties [18:52] in the impeachment complaint, [18:53] kaya ang bilis namin [18:54] mag-transmit at magpadala na mga documents. [18:57] But I don't know really, [18:59] with the plenary, [19:00] if apart from the electronic copy, [19:02] they will be providing hard copy. [19:04] It will depend on the judgment [19:06] of the plenary. [19:08] But you believe by May 11, [19:10] the plenary will be able to vote? [19:13] They should be ready to vote. [19:15] They should be ready to vote. [19:17] But it depends, again, [19:18] on the plenary, [19:19] whether or not [19:20] they will proceed to vote by May 11. [19:22] Can the House Speaker [19:24] change the date on May 11? [19:26] What can the House Speaker [19:28] choose to do? [19:31] You know, [19:31] the plenary is led [19:35] by a lot of House leaders. [19:37] Okay. [19:37] We have the deputy speakers, [19:39] we have the majority leaders, [19:41] we have the senior deputy speaker, [19:43] we have the speaker, [19:44] you know. [19:44] They are part of the decision-making [19:47] in the plenary. [19:48] So as to when really [19:50] the plenary vote will happen, [19:53] of course, [19:53] the House leaders [19:54] will have a say also on this. [19:56] All right. [19:57] Now, [19:57] let's go back a bit. [19:58] I mean, [19:59] 55, [19:59] this was unanimous [20:01] with no abstentions. [20:03] What do you think did it? [20:05] I mean, [20:05] clearly, [20:06] there were strong, [20:08] there were strong parts [20:10] of the hearing [20:10] because I watched it all [20:11] of the discussions. [20:13] What do you think convinced [20:15] most of the justice panel members? [20:18] I think it's the unexplained wealth. [20:22] It's the report of AMLA, [20:24] this Avid Salen [20:26] of the vice president, [20:27] no? [20:28] Kasi even I [20:30] was able to observe [20:31] that prior to [20:33] the April 22 hearing, [20:35] talagang you cannot tell [20:37] whether or not [20:38] the justice members [20:40] will be supporting [20:41] the impeachment process, [20:44] but after the [20:46] the April 22 hearing, [20:49] I'm beginning to [20:50] to receive text, [20:52] calls, [20:54] making further inquiries [20:55] about the [20:57] AMLA report, [20:58] no? [20:58] They would even ask [20:59] to too ba yung [21:00] AMLA report? [21:02] I would say, [21:03] of course, [21:04] of course, [21:05] it's true. [21:06] Dahil yung [21:07] executive director [21:08] naman yung [21:09] mag-testify, [21:11] di ba? [21:11] And I've been [21:12] mentioning about [21:13] the presumption [21:14] of regularity [21:15] of performance [21:16] that this [21:17] AMLA report [21:19] and AMLA official [21:20] deserve under the law, [21:22] no? [21:22] So, [21:23] you're correct, [21:24] Karen, [21:24] it's the [21:25] April 22 hearing, [21:26] to be specific, [21:27] the AMLA report [21:29] together with [21:30] the Salen [21:31] that made [21:33] a lot of difference [21:34] on how, [21:35] in fact, [21:36] hindi lang itong [21:36] ano, [21:37] house members, [21:38] even the viewing public, [21:39] how the people [21:40] in general [21:41] change their position [21:43] in as far as [21:44] this impeachment [21:45] process is [21:45] concerned. [21:47] Okay, [21:47] I interviewed [21:48] Attorney Michael [21:49] Poa yesterday [21:50] on Head Start [21:51] and I want to [21:51] ask you two [21:52] points. [21:53] Number one, [21:54] when I asked him [21:55] about the bank [21:56] account that [21:57] Senator Antonio [21:58] Trillanes [21:58] exposed, [22:00] he's been [22:01] doing this [22:01] for the last [22:02] 10 years. [22:03] Ang tanong ni [22:04] Attorney Michael [22:04] Poa, [22:05] of course, [22:05] he didn't reveal [22:06] the whole strategy [22:07] but he said [22:08] there are [22:10] questions on, [22:11] una, [22:12] he's not even [22:12] saying totoo [22:13] yung account [22:13] pero sabi niya, [22:15] nakuha ba [22:16] ni Vice President [22:17] Sara Duterte [22:18] ang perang yun? [22:20] Alam ba niya [22:20] ang account na yun? [22:23] Alam ba niya [22:23] ang binideposit doon? [22:25] What do you make [22:26] of that? [22:27] Because they did not [22:28] attend the hearings eh. [22:32] But the name [22:33] is with [22:35] the Vice President [22:36] Sara, [22:36] the account [22:37] is under the name [22:38] of Vice President [22:40] Sara Duterte, [22:41] di ba? [22:42] As a matter of fact, [22:44] when we subpoena [22:45] the AMLAC report, [22:47] what we ask [22:48] is covered [22:50] and suspicious [22:51] transactions [22:52] under the name [22:54] of Sara Duterte, [22:57] husband, [22:59] and anyone [23:00] they are [23:01] having joint [23:02] account with. [23:03] Something like that, [23:05] no? [23:06] I don't know [23:08] how else [23:09] you will interpret [23:10] or appreciate [23:11] documents, [23:14] documents of AMLAC [23:15] or even other [23:16] financial documents [23:17] which actually [23:18] disclose [23:19] the name [23:20] of the Vice President [23:21] as the account holder. [23:23] How would you [23:24] appreciate that? [23:25] Except, [23:26] except by [23:28] appreciating [23:29] that he is [23:30] the owner [23:30] of the account. [23:31] Why, [23:32] why would they [23:33] place that account [23:35] under the name [23:36] of the Vice President [23:37] if indeed [23:38] she doesn't [23:39] own that account? [23:40] And I think [23:42] there's a lot [23:43] more things [23:44] to be proven [23:46] kung ganyan [23:47] ang magiging [23:47] claim nila. [23:48] Ang dami nilang [23:50] kailangan patunayan [23:51] at ipaliwanag [23:52] sa impeachment court [23:53] if that will be [23:54] their claim. [23:55] Because the bank account [23:56] or the AMLAC report [23:58] already says [23:59] this is VP [24:00] Sara Duterte's account. [24:02] This is VP [24:03] Sara Duterte's [24:04] transaction. [24:04] they will be [24:06] claiming that [24:07] she did not [24:07] receive. [24:08] How else are you [24:09] going to [24:09] appreciate that? [24:10] Who else [24:11] received [24:11] if not her? [24:13] And when you [24:14] open an account, [24:15] I mean this [24:15] will be tackled [24:16] if this reaches [24:17] the Senate. [24:18] You'd probably [24:19] be a part of it. [24:21] You'd have to sign, [24:22] you'd actually [24:23] have to sign [24:23] before you [24:24] open an account [24:25] where your name [24:26] is allowed to be [24:28] in an account. [24:28] So that's one. [24:29] Number two [24:30] is the calling [24:31] of the bank [24:32] managers themselves. [24:33] So most likely [24:34] that will happen [24:35] if this reaches [24:36] the Senate. [24:38] What about [24:38] the SAL-N? [24:39] Attorney Michael [24:40] Powa said [24:41] that the Vice [24:42] President had [24:43] no cash on hand [24:44] because [24:44] nilagay niya [24:45] sa others. [24:47] You are [24:48] an elected official, [24:49] you're a public [24:50] official, [24:51] is that allowed? [24:52] Can you put [24:52] your cash [24:53] in others? [24:55] Well, to make [24:55] the position [24:56] of the Justice [24:58] Committee official [24:59] on that matter, [25:01] we requested [25:01] a position [25:02] paper with [25:03] the Civil [25:04] Service Commission [25:05] on whether [25:07] or not [25:07] the government [25:08] officials are [25:09] actually allowed [25:09] to put [25:10] cash or [25:12] bank deposit [25:12] under the [25:13] item others. [25:15] I have yet [25:15] to check, [25:16] Karen, [25:16] kung nareceive [25:18] na ba [25:18] ng committee [25:19] yan, [25:19] but that [25:20] will be part [25:20] of our [25:21] records, [25:22] which we [25:23] will be [25:23] using in [25:24] case this [25:25] will be [25:25] transmitted [25:25] to the [25:26] court. [25:27] Yeah. [25:27] And another [25:28] one is [25:28] the Vice [25:29] President's [25:30] team said [25:30] that unlike [25:32] the process, [25:35] kasi [25:35] kinumparato [25:35] sa piskal [25:36] ya, [25:37] para kayong [25:37] piskal. [25:38] But he said [25:39] something interesting. [25:40] He said, [25:41] Karen, [25:42] ang piskal [25:42] is not [25:43] proactively [25:44] looking for [25:45] evidence. [25:45] kumbaga, [25:46] hindi nagpapasabina. [25:48] His complaint [25:48] was in the [25:49] House Justice [25:50] Committee panel, [25:52] it's the [25:52] members that [25:53] were looking [25:54] for evidence. [25:55] It did not [25:56] come from [25:56] the complainants. [25:58] So there's [25:59] an allegation [26:00] of bias [26:01] right there. [26:02] I beg [26:04] to disagree [26:05] to that, [26:05] Karen. [26:06] It is a [26:07] matter of [26:07] fact that [26:09] the prosecutors [26:11] in an [26:11] ordinary [26:12] criminal [26:12] proceeding [26:13] do [26:14] issue [26:15] sa pina [26:16] at [26:16] testificandum [26:17] and sa [26:18] pina [26:18] do [26:18] seste [26:19] kum. [26:19] Although, [26:20] I make [26:21] reservation [26:22] to the [26:22] fact [26:22] na [26:23] depende yun [26:24] sa prosecutor [26:25] kung [26:26] if he [26:27] feels [26:27] na may [26:28] makikita [26:29] siyang [26:29] ebidensya [26:30] from [26:31] the other [26:32] documents [26:33] which will [26:34] be produced [26:34] by way [26:35] of [26:35] sub-pina. [26:36] Kumbaga, [26:37] hindi naman [26:37] siya [26:38] protocol [26:39] but it [26:40] is a [26:40] case-to-case [26:41] basis [26:41] whether or [26:42] not [26:42] the fiscal [26:43] will be [26:44] exercising [26:45] this compulsory [26:45] process [26:46] to be [26:47] able to [26:47] aid her [26:48] in determining [26:49] the existence [26:50] or non-existence [26:51] of probable [26:51] cause. [26:52] At [26:53] ito namang [26:54] discussion [26:55] natin [26:55] about [26:56] preliminary [26:56] investigation [26:57] or [26:59] prosecutor [27:00] or fiscal [27:01] it is [27:02] just [27:03] a way [27:04] of [27:04] explaining [27:05] to the [27:05] public [27:05] what is [27:06] really [27:06] happening [27:07] before [27:07] the [27:07] justice [27:08] committee. [27:09] But let [27:09] us [27:09] remember [27:09] that [27:10] this [27:10] is [27:10] sui [27:10] generis. [27:12] Wala [27:12] naman [27:12] talaga [27:13] siyang [27:13] structured [27:14] na form [27:15] na pwede [27:16] mong [27:16] sabihin [27:16] civil [27:17] ito, [27:17] criminal [27:18] ito, [27:18] admin [27:19] ito, [27:19] political [27:20] ito. [27:20] No. [27:21] As a [27:21] matter [27:21] of fact, [27:22] ang [27:23] description [27:23] natin [27:24] sa kanya [27:24] eh, [27:25] it is [27:25] a [27:25] constitutional, [27:26] it is [27:27] political, [27:27] it is [27:28] legal [27:28] processes. [27:29] Diba? [27:29] So, [27:31] lumabas [27:31] lang yung [27:32] discussion [27:33] natin [27:33] about [27:33] preliminary [27:34] investigation [27:35] because [27:35] we are [27:36] trying to [27:37] explain [27:37] to the [27:38] general [27:38] public [27:39] how the [27:40] proceedings [27:41] go before [27:41] the [27:41] justice [27:42] committee. [27:42] and indeed [27:43] we believe [27:44] that it [27:44] is similar [27:45] to the [27:47] preliminary [27:48] investigation [27:49] in as far [27:50] as the [27:51] mandate [27:51] is concerned. [27:52] That is [27:53] the [27:53] determination [27:53] of probable [27:54] cause. [27:55] And in as far [27:56] as the [27:56] purpose [27:57] is concerned [27:57] because [27:58] this will [27:58] determine [27:59] whether or [28:00] not we [28:00] will [28:00] proceed [28:01] to the [28:02] next [28:02] step [28:02] of the [28:03] impeachment [28:03] process. [28:04] But let [28:05] us [28:05] remember [28:06] this is [28:06] sui generis. [28:08] Hindi siya [28:08] exactly [28:09] criminal [28:10] proceeding, [28:11] hindi siya [28:11] exactly [28:12] civil [28:12] proceeding, [28:13] neither [28:13] it is [28:14] exactly [28:15] administrative [28:16] or [28:16] what do you [28:19] call this? [28:19] judicial [28:21] proceeding. [28:22] No, [28:22] this is [28:23] a class [28:23] of its [28:24] own. [28:25] Unique [28:25] itong [28:26] impeachment [28:26] process [28:27] na ito. [28:27] On that [28:28] note, [28:28] I want [28:29] to thank [28:29] you for [28:30] joining [28:30] me today. [28:31] House [28:31] Justice [28:31] Committee [28:32] Chairperson [28:33] Jervil [28:34] Luistro. [28:34] Thank [28:35] you, [28:35] ma'am.