About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of HOUSE JUSTICE COMMITTEE HEARING SA IMPEACHMENT NI SARA - April 22, 2026 Part 3 from Enzo Recto, published April 23, 2026. The transcript contains 11,606 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Corp Industries first, before proceeding to the financial statements po. Okay, can we go to the GIS, the part in the GIS where the stockholder list is stated there? Sige po, can we scroll to where the GIS is, please? Please flash the general information sheet showing the board of directors. Ano,..."
[0:00] Corp Industries first, before proceeding to the financial statements po.
[0:25] Okay, can we go to the GIS, the part in the GIS where the stockholder list is stated there?
[0:56] Sige po, can we scroll to where the GIS is, please?
[1:01] Please flash the general information sheet showing the board of directors.
[1:08] Ano, the stockholder list po?
[1:09] The stockholders.
[1:10] This is, I think, in page. Are we looking at the PDF of the submission po?
[1:50] Secretariat, are we ready with the GIS?
[1:55] Please refer to the GIS of two years, of June 5, 2024.
[2:08] Sige po, baka may copy na lang din po yung SEC para we can be a bit fast.
[2:13] We are looking at the submission of the GIS for June 5, 2024.
[2:22] Because this is the year in which the saline was submitted as well.
[2:27] Can we state po, for the record, who are the listed stockholders of Gencorp Industries, Inc.?
[2:35] Well, for the GIS 2024.
[2:38] Can you speak closer to the mic, please, so that we can hear?
[2:43] With respect for the GIS 2024, which was received by the commission on June 11, 2024,
[2:48] the following are the directors, officers, stockholders of the Gencorp Industries.
[2:57] Kimberly Justin Y. Cruz, also a member of the board of directors, chairman, president.
[3:05] Sorry, sorry. This is not the page that we're discussing.
[3:11] We wanted to talk about the next page po.
[3:13] The stockholder list, corporate name, Gencorp Industries, Inc., total number of stockholders.
[3:31] Meron po siyang anim na stockholders dito.
[3:36] Ayon po sa June 5, 2025.
[3:39] June 5, 2020. Sige, we can discuss the June 5, 2025 po muna.
[3:43] Alright.
[3:44] Meron pong anim na stockholders.
[3:48] Sige po, can you state it for the record, please?
[3:50] Ang una po ay si Kimberly Justin Y. Cruz, siya po ang member on board, ang presidente,
[3:59] at ang kanyang number of shares na subscribe ay 1,875.
[4:05] Pangalawa po ay ang JTC…
[4:06] Kindly speak closer to the microphone.
[4:08] Ang pangalawa po ay yung JTC group of companies, represented by a certain Jaime T. Cruz,
[4:16] na meron po siyang…
[4:18] Excuse me, I have to stop you there. I don't think we're looking at the same document, please.
[4:22] Can you reconfirm the document that you're looking at?
[4:28] And can the Secretariat actually flash the particular document that we want to get presented, please?
[4:37] Secretariat, please flash the concerned document.
[4:41] Is this the document, Honorable Redon?
[4:46] Can you zoom further, please? Thank you.
[4:54] Can you zoom further?
[5:01] Yes, that is the document that we are discussing.
[5:05] Can you state for the record who the stockholders are?
[5:08] Well, Madam Chair, the following are the stockholders.
[5:13] First, the JTC group of companies, who own 54.99% of the company's capital stocks.
[5:26] Number two, Jaime T. Cruz, owning 0.001%, or just 100 pesos in terms of paid-up capitalization, or one share.
[5:45] The other one is Richie Evette Cruz, who owns 2,500 shares, or 20% of the company.
[6:02] The other one is Kimberlin Justine Y. Cruz, owning 15% of the company, or 1,875 shares.
[6:16] Next is Girly S. De La Cruz, who owns 5% of the company, or a subscription of 625 shares.
[6:29] And the last one is Nathan Zachary Cruz, who owns 5% of the company, or with a subscription of 625 shares.
[6:42] So, the total of ownership is 100% for the 6 stockholders, is that correct?
[6:53] Yes, Madam Chair.
[6:54] We would like to state for the record, Madam Chair, that for the 2025 GIS submission of Gencorp Industries, Inc.,
[7:02] it is not listed as a line item, the name, Sarah Z. Duterte.
[7:07] The manifestation is noted.
[7:09] Can we go back to the 2024 submission of the GIS, please?
[7:15] So that we can read for the record as well, yung pong listahan ng stockholders.
[7:22] Please flash the 2024 GIS.
[7:38] Sige po, do you have the document, sir?
[7:41] Yes, Madam Chair.
[7:42] Reading the 2024 GIS, the following are the stockholders.
[7:47] First, JTC group of companies, owning 64.99% of the company, or the total of 8,124 shares.
[7:58] Second, is Mr. Jaime T. Cruz, owning just one share, or 0.001.
[8:08] Madam Chair.
[8:10] Honorable Edson.
[8:11] If the indulgence of Congressman Redon, Madam Chair, as a response to the question of Congressman Redon,
[8:18] the SEC mentioned certain names, Mr. Chair, which are names that are not supposed to be part of the justice hearing, the impeachment hearing.
[8:29] I move, Mr. Chair, that, you know, for privacy, data privacy, that we do not violate this law.
[8:38] Would you like to raise the necessary motion?
[8:40] Yeah, I would move that the names that are not part of the hearing of the justice committee be stricken out from the record,
[8:50] in order that we avoid violating the data privacy law.
[8:53] There is a motion to strike out from the record the names of stockholders not part of this impeachment proceeding due to the data privacy law.
[9:09] Is there any second?
[9:10] The same has been seconded.
[9:12] Any objection?
[9:13] Hearing none, the motion is granted.
[9:16] Committee secretary is directed to strike out from the record all the names mentioned in the records.
[9:23] All right, we submit, Madam Chair.
[9:29] Can we just state for the record, I'd like to state for the record that even in the 2024 GIS submission,
[9:39] there is no name in the stockholder list that is named Sarah Z. Duterte.
[9:46] So let us proceed to the financial statements of GenCorp, Madam Chair.
[9:56] You may proceed.
[9:57] Can we flash, po, the financial statements of GenCorp?
[10:04] The audited financial statement of GenCorp.
[10:07] Kindly flash.
[10:11] Please redact the names of those who are not privy in this impeachment proceeding.
[10:41] Okay, po.
[10:41] We are looking at the financial statement for 2021.
[10:55] Particularly, po, the statement of income.
[11:01] Do you have the copy of it, po?
[11:03] Second representative, please.
[11:04] For 2021, the revenue of GenCorp, po, is, can you read it, please?
[11:32] For 2021, the revenue as a hearing in a statement of income is $28,087,703.
[11:43] Can we zoom it?
[11:45] Can we zoom the slide, please?
[11:46] $28 million for 2021.
[11:48] And then for 2022, can we state for the record, the revenue for 2022?
[11:56] The revenue for 2022 is $300,023,052.
[12:04] Okay.
[12:05] Can we go to the next year's financial statement, so that we can state for the record, po, the
[12:11] succeeding revenue of GenCorp, for 2023?
[12:16] Can we go to the 2023?
[12:35] Ayan.
[12:36] Okay.
[12:36] Ito po.
[12:38] Can we state for the record, second representative, please?
[12:42] For the, Mr. Madam Chair, for the revenues of GenCorp industry in 2023, it's $320,560,702.
[12:55] And for 2024?
[12:59] For 2024, and the revenue is $394,075,361.
[13:08] Thank you, po, for your response.
[13:10] Very curious, po, yung net income, din po.
[13:12] Can we state for the record also from the beginning?
[13:15] Yung 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, please.
[13:23] Ayan po.
[13:24] The net income for 2021 is what?
[13:27] Kindly state for the record, please.
[13:30] For 2021, it's $28,087,000.
[13:33] Sorry, the net income for 2021, at the bottom.
[13:36] $182,794.
[13:40] Okay.
[13:40] For 2022, naman po.
[13:43] It's $1,831,093.
[13:48] Okay.
[13:49] Next slide.
[13:49] For 2023 and 2024, can we state for the record the net income?
[13:55] For 2023, it's $2,700,451.
[14:00] And for 2024?
[14:03] And for 2024?
[14:03] For 2024, it's $3,324,863.
[14:11] Thank you for the statement.
[14:13] Madam Chair, we'd like to manifest that very curious po itong kumpanya po na ito.
[14:18] Dahil ito po ay mula 2021 biglang lumobo from $28 million to $300 million yung po kanilang revenue.
[14:27] Pero yung pong kita nila, yung tubo nila ay consistently po 0.08% lang po yung kanila pong margin.
[14:38] So makikita ho nyo dyan na kahit gano'ng kalaki po yung kita ho nila.
[14:43] 300 million, naabot pa huna, almost 400 million.
[14:47] Pero sa dulo, yung pong tubo nila ay gano'n lang po kaliit.
[14:51] So I think this deserves further scrutiny by law enforcement offices.
[14:58] Dahil not only because it was stated in the saline of the vice president,
[15:02] but also because gusto nating malaman,
[15:06] ganyan ba talaga ho nag-ooperate yung ilan po sa mga kumpanya
[15:09] na nakapangalan po sa atin pong pangalawang pangulo.
[15:15] So yun po Madam Chair, yung isa ho sa mga gusto ho nating masilip.
[15:22] Yun po muna, marami salamat.
[15:24] Thank you.
[15:25] Any other member who wishes to raise clarificatory questions?
[15:30] The Honorable Gutierrez and then the Honorable Tinio.
[15:34] Madam Chair, just to make it brief,
[15:35] actually one of the points I wanted to take it up
[15:37] was taken up by Congressman Redon.
[15:40] The SEC has confirmed that despite the mention of GenCorp
[15:44] in the 2024 saline, wala naman po sa GIS.
[15:47] On that note though, correct po ba to the Honorable Chairman to the SEC,
[15:52] we're talking of GIS since 2021, no?
[15:55] Kasi yun lang po yung establishment ng GenCorp.
[15:59] Tama po, Madam Chair.
[16:00] And I recall si Congressman Redon was talking about
[16:05] the non-existence or non-appearance of the name of the Vice President.
[16:08] But Madam Chair, for all those GIS,
[16:11] was a beneficial ownership component included in the GIS?
[16:19] I'll check po, Madam Chair.
[16:21] Nailan po.
[16:22] You're asking about the beneficial owner?
[16:24] Because for the information of the public,
[16:28] when you file a GIS,
[16:29] may requirement po na on the last page,
[16:31] I believe dapat merong beneficial owner that's mentioned.
[16:33] Maybe that would explain po the discrepancy kung bakit wala po sa shareholder.
[16:38] So we're confirming now the GIS.
[16:40] Because I think the publicly available GIS,
[16:42] because this can be gathered naman po publicly,
[16:45] wala po yung beneficial ownership.
[16:46] So that's why Madam Chair, I want to clarify with the SEC
[16:48] if they can confirm na wala nga pong beneficial ownership component.
[16:52] Madam Chair, the view of form is part ng GIS.
[16:57] Pero nire-redact po namin yan kasi hindi po siya available sa public.
[17:02] At hindi po namin na isama sa request ng committee.
[17:07] Pero kung irinirequest po yan,
[17:09] kami po magsasama ng kopinyan.
[17:11] Thank you for the confirmation, Madam Chair.
[17:13] So that'll explain why wala po.
[17:14] So and he, sorry to correct us, Madam Chair.
[17:18] So wala rin po sa submission that was included.
[17:21] Hindi po siya na isama sa document submitted by virtue of the subpoena today.
[17:25] Hindi po.
[17:25] Wala po.
[17:26] Madam Chair, perhaps it would be something that the endorsers would consider
[17:30] if they want to look into it.
[17:32] Kung sino man po yung nag-motion for the subpoena of the GIS
[17:36] to include now the beneficial ownership.
[17:39] But siguro we can take this up at a later time.
[17:41] That's all for me for now.
[17:42] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[17:42] We will defer to the endorsers of the impeachment complaint.
[17:45] Any other clarificatory questions?
[17:49] The Honorable Thinio is recognized.
[17:51] Madam Chair.
[17:52] Madam Chair.
[17:57] Kasama po ba sa information ninyo,
[17:59] anong tipo ng negosyo or business yung,
[18:03] for example, Gencorp Industries Incorporated.
[18:07] Pwede po bang maishare?
[18:10] Well, based po sa kanyang primary purpose,
[18:15] ito po ay ang Gencorp Industries.
[18:18] Please speak closer to the microphone.
[18:20] To establish, operate a restaurant.
[18:23] Naka-indicate po ba kung anong restaurant?
[18:32] The SEC is reminded to limit the answers to what appears
[18:35] in the document subject matter of the subpoena.
[18:48] I-check lang po namin kung may kasamang business name ito.
[18:50] Sige po.
[18:55] Please limit the answer to what appears in the document subject matter of the subpoena.
[19:01] Madam Chair, talaga pong Gencorp Industries lang ang pangalan ng negosyo.
[19:04] Madam Chair, as an observation or manifestation,
[19:09] Yes.
[19:11] Through my own research,
[19:14] Gencorp Industries appears to be associated with a Jollibee branch in Bolton,
[19:22] which is on CM Recto in Davao City.
[19:26] That is your manifestation?
[19:28] Yes.
[19:28] The committee notes the manifestation of the Honorable Tinio.
[19:33] Are you finished with your clarificatory questions, Honorable Tinio?
[19:40] Yes, Madam Chair.
[19:41] Now we recognize the Honorable Lord and Suwan.
[19:45] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[19:46] So to the representative of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
[19:52] do you have with you the general information sheet for Metro City Chow Foods Corporation?
[20:06] Meron po, Madam Chair.
[20:09] May I ask if based on the GIS of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation for the year 2022,
[20:17] does the name Sara Z. Duterte appear as one of the board of directors?
[20:23] Madam Chair, for the GIS of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation,
[20:59] for the GIS 2022, the name Sara Z. Duterte appears to be a stockholder of the corporation.
[21:12] She is a stockholder and not a board of directors, not one of the board?
[21:19] She is also a member of the board of the corporation.
[21:24] Okay.
[21:26] Based on the GIS of the same company, Metro City Chow Foods Corporation,
[21:31] this time for the year 2023, does the name Sara Z. Duterte
[21:36] also appear as one of the stockholders or member of the board of directors?
[21:43] Yes, Madam Chair, also the name of Sara Z. Duterte appears as a stockholder
[21:49] and member of the board of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation.
[21:55] And for the year 2024, based on the general information sheet of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation,
[22:08] does the name Sara Z. Duterte also appear as a member of the board of directors?
[22:14] Madam Chair, based on the 2024 GIS of the corporation,
[22:19] the name Sara Z. Duterte appears as a stockholder and member of the board of the said corporation.
[22:24] Can you confirm if the name Sara Z. Duterte listed as a member of the board of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation
[22:37] is the same Vice President Sara Z. Duterte?
[22:44] Well, Madam Chair, the reference here is Sara Z. Duterte.
[22:49] Then I presume that this is the honorable Vice President, Sara Z. Duterte.
[22:53] Based on the general information sheet of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation for the year 2025,
[23:05] is the Vice President still listed as a member of the board of directors of the same company?
[23:16] Yes, Madam Chair, Sara Z. Duterte appears to be a member of the board and a stockholder of the corporation
[23:24] under the 2025 GIS.
[23:26] Also based on the 2025 general information sheet for Metro City Chow Foods Corporation for the year 2025,
[23:37] does the respondent Vice President have 500 shares in this company?
[23:44] Madam Chair, based on the 2025 amended JS, the name Sara Z. Duterte appears as a stockholder
[23:52] of 500 shares of the said corporation.
[23:59] Madam Chair, just an observation.
[24:04] Section 13, Article 7 of the Constitution prohibits the Vice President from participating
[24:13] directly or indirectly in any business during her tenure.
[24:18] And the resource person has just confirmed that she has 500 shares of stock in a private company.
[24:27] For the consideration of the committee, Madam Chair.
[24:30] We know the manifestation of the Honorable Lord and Suwon.
[24:37] Do you have any other clarificatory questions, Honorable Suwon?
[24:46] Wala na po, Madam Chair.
[24:48] Now we recognize the Honorable Jude Asidre.
[24:51] Magandang hapon po, Madam Chair.
[24:54] Meron po ako mga clarificatory questions sa kinatawan po ng SEC.
[24:59] Base po sa sal-end ng kagalang-galang na pangalawang Pangulo,
[25:06] ang mga business interests at financial connections na nakadeklara doon ay ang mga sumusunod.
[25:13] First, Metro City Chow Foods Corporation.
[25:17] Second, Gencorp Industries Inc.
[25:21] Third, Carpio Lawyers.
[25:23] Fourth, 888 Bistro.
[25:26] Fifth, Kale 88 Foods Corporation.
[25:32] Six, Madayao Fisheries Corporation.
[25:35] Seven, Mati City Ice Plant and Cold Storage Inc.
[25:38] Eighth, Amyanan Shores Inc.
[25:43] Ninth, Geometry Security and Investigation Agency Inc.
[25:48] And tenth, Cable 288 Shipping and Marine Services Inc.
[25:55] May mga tanong lang po ako tungkol dito, Madam Chair.
[25:59] May proceed.
[25:59] Sa kinatawan po ng SEC, makukumpirman niyo po ba na ang Metro City Chow Food Corporation,
[26:09] katulad ng nauna for the record at paulit ko lang po,
[26:12] nakarehistro pa rin po sa SEC at kumpleto po ang mga submissions nito?
[26:18] Updated po ba ang mga submissions nito?
[26:27] SEC?
[26:34] Madam Chair, with respect to the annual reportorial compliance po ng Metro City Chow Food,
[26:41] we prepare a monitoring sheet indicating kung ano po ang mga naisubmit ng nasabing kumpanya,
[26:53] which is composed of a consisting of GIS and financial statement,
[26:57] which are part of their annual compliance report.
[27:01] At base po sa aming record, sa GIS po,
[27:09] noong 2017, hindi po siya nakapagsubmite ng GIS.
[27:15] Itong 2022 at 2023, nakapagsubmite po siya, kaya lang late.
[27:23] Tungkol naman po sa financial statement,
[27:27] 2026 po, rather 2016, wala po siyang submission.
[27:34] Yun po yung mga pagkukulang nung nasabing Metro...
[27:41] Madam Chair, magkano naman po ang latest declared income ng Metro City Chow Food Corporation
[27:47] base sa pinakalas pong AFS nito?
[28:02] Magkano po ang kinita ng Metro City Chow Food Corporation nitong 2024?
[28:11] Based po sa 2024 financial statement,
[28:29] ito po ay may revenue na 35,097,069.
[28:41] Gross or net-net po yun?
[28:59] Gross po.
[28:59] Ang net income po ay...
[29:28] Nasabit po lahat, Madam Chair, ang mga documents na ito po,
[29:33] ng mga AFS at GIS po, ng mga kumpanya.
[29:36] That is the manifestation earlier of the SEC,
[29:39] and we took note of the manifestation.
[29:43] Yung net income po ng 2024.
[29:53] Madam Chair, Madam Chair, can we request...
[29:57] With the intelligence of the Honorable Asidre,
[29:59] the Honorable DS Biron is recognized.
[30:01] Yes, can we have the AFS audited financial statement flashed on screen?
[30:07] Secretary, please flash the 2024 audited financial statement.
[30:12] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[30:12] Reduct the name of the other stockholders.
[30:18] Yung net income lang, Madam Chair, 2024.
[30:23] It's net loss.
[30:29] So may net loss po,
[30:30] will you confirm po na ang net loss ay
[30:33] P309,860 pesos as of 2024?
[30:39] Madam Chair, I confirmed that the Metro Chao food,
[30:42] based on the 2024 financial statement,
[30:45] year ended December 31,
[30:46] has occurred 309,860 loss.
[30:50] Net loss po.
[30:53] For the next company, Madam Chair,
[30:55] let's go to GenCorp.
[30:57] Just for the record...
[30:59] Please flash the GenCorp statements of income.
[31:02] Naka...
[31:04] Naka...
[31:04] Ngino-confirma niyo po na may...
[31:06] Na mayroong pong submission sa SEC ang GenCorp.
[31:11] Kasama po ang GIS at AFS.
[31:18] Meron po kaming isinimiting kopya niya.
[31:21] As requested po ng committee.
[31:24] Ang ASF po updated at kompleto po ang submission?
[31:27] O may kulang na taon po ba?
[31:29] Hinapin ko lang yung GenCorp.
[31:39] GenCorp.
[31:39] Base po sa record namin,
[31:50] ang GenCorp po ay may violation po
[31:56] sa pagsumitin report
[31:57] sa dahilan po na noong 2022 at 2023,
[32:02] late po silang nakapagsumitin na kalan-GIS.
[32:06] At magkano naman po ang latest declared income?
[32:09] For the record pa,
[32:09] ulit lang po,
[32:11] noong GenCorp Industries Incorporated
[32:13] as of 2024.
[32:16] Net income po.
[32:17] It's 3,324,863.
[32:31] Madam Chair.
[32:32] The Honorable Flores
[32:33] with the indulgence of the Honorable Asidre.
[32:35] With the indulgence of Congressman Asidre.
[32:37] May I just know, Madam Chair,
[32:40] where this line of questioning is leading us, Madam Chair?
[32:42] Honorable Asidre.
[32:44] First, these companies have already been
[32:46] declared by the Vice President Inersal
[32:49] and I don't know why we're discussing
[32:51] the income of these corporations.
[32:54] I just want to know the relevance, Madam Chair,
[32:56] because...
[32:59] May we hear from the Honorable Asidre?
[33:01] We're anticipating...
[33:02] We are considering...
[33:03] We're considering, Madam Chair,
[33:05] na from the income
[33:08] of the business interests
[33:11] of the Vice President,
[33:13] they may be able to justify
[33:14] any of the amounts
[33:16] presented as income
[33:18] in their statement of assets and liabilities.
[33:22] That's why we would want to establish
[33:24] whether the proceeds
[33:25] from these businesses
[33:26] would suffice
[33:29] as to
[33:30] support
[33:33] any of the amounts
[33:35] reported in the SAL-EN.
[33:36] That is the intent
[33:39] of the questioning, Madam Chair.
[33:41] Madam Chair,
[33:42] the SAL-EN law
[33:43] just requires us
[33:44] to make the declarations,
[33:45] Madam Chair.
[33:45] It does not require us
[33:47] to indicate
[33:48] whether it's earning
[33:49] or it's not earning, Madam Chair.
[33:50] So, where are we going
[33:52] with these questions, Madam Chair?
[33:54] Nonetheless, let us allow
[33:55] to allow
[33:56] Honorable Asidre to proceed.
[33:58] He intends to
[33:59] establish
[34:00] where the
[34:02] net worth
[34:03] came from.
[34:04] That is why
[34:05] the questions are
[34:05] whether or not
[34:06] the businesses
[34:08] registered
[34:08] in the name
[34:10] of the respondent
[34:11] generated income
[34:13] or otherwise.
[34:14] Madam Chair,
[34:15] the Honorable
[34:16] DS Birol.
[34:17] Congressman Asidre,
[34:19] the questioning
[34:21] of Honorable Asidre
[34:23] is well justified
[34:25] because
[34:26] in this declaration
[34:29] of income,
[34:30] if all the business
[34:31] interests
[34:32] of the Vice President
[34:34] would include
[34:36] issuance of dividends
[34:38] because she is
[34:40] one of the owners
[34:41] of the corporation,
[34:42] then that would justify
[34:44] infusion
[34:45] of these proceeds
[34:47] from the issuance
[34:48] of dividends
[34:48] that would constitute
[34:49] part of her
[34:51] declaration
[34:53] of SAL-END
[34:54] because it is not
[34:55] included
[34:56] in the ITR.
[34:58] In the filing
[34:59] of ITR,
[34:59] that exempts,
[35:01] I think our
[35:01] Commissioner BIR
[35:02] will explain that
[35:03] further,
[35:04] hindi makikita
[35:05] iyan sa income
[35:06] tax return
[35:07] ng Vice Presidente
[35:09] kung may dividend
[35:10] do,
[35:11] it will only appear
[35:12] in the infusion
[35:14] of funds
[35:14] as part of her
[35:15] SAL-END
[35:16] kung nag-issue
[35:17] ng dividendo
[35:18] ang mga kumpanya
[35:19] na pinagbamayari nila.
[35:21] That's why
[35:21] well justified
[35:22] ang mga questions
[35:23] ni Congressman Asidre.
[35:26] That's all,
[35:26] Madam Chair.
[35:27] With the indulgence
[35:28] of the Honorable Flores,
[35:29] let us allow
[35:30] the Honorable Asidre
[35:32] to continue
[35:33] with his
[35:33] clarificatory questions.
[35:35] Now, let's move
[35:36] to the next company
[35:37] that was identified
[35:38] in the Vice President
[35:39] SAL-END.
[35:41] Kompleto po ba
[35:42] ang registration
[35:43] ng CARPIO lawyers?
[35:44] Sir,
[35:48] ang CARPIO lawyers
[35:49] po ay isang partnership
[35:50] kaya ang napadala
[35:51] lang po namin
[35:52] ang kanyang article
[35:55] certificate
[35:56] recording of the
[35:58] articles of partnership
[35:59] ng CARPIO lawyers.
[36:00] At tama po ba
[36:01] na hindi nire-report
[36:02] ang income
[36:03] ng partnership
[36:04] sa SCC?
[36:05] Hindi po required
[36:06] na masumiti sila
[36:07] ng JSO
[36:09] financial statement
[36:10] kung ito
[36:12] ay isang partnership.
[36:14] Madam Chair,
[36:15] kompleto,
[36:16] we'll go
[36:16] to the next company,
[36:18] Cali 88 Foods Corporation.
[36:21] Kompleto po ba
[36:22] at updated
[36:22] ang submissions
[36:23] ng Cali 88?
[36:25] For Cali 88,
[36:34] Madam Chair,
[36:37] kompleto po ang
[36:38] GIS at
[36:39] financial statement
[36:40] although yung
[36:41] 2022 at
[36:42] 2022 GIS po
[36:43] ay naisubiti po
[36:44] sa amin
[36:45] ng late.
[36:47] Magkano po yung
[36:47] pinaka net income
[36:50] ng Cali 88 Foods
[36:51] Corporation
[36:52] nung yung pinaka
[36:53] latest po na
[36:54] income na din
[36:55] ni Claire.
[37:10] Pwede po bang
[37:10] maflash yung
[37:11] latest na
[37:13] audit financial statement?
[37:15] What company is this?
[37:16] Cali 88 Foods Corporation.
[37:18] 888 Foods Corporation?
[37:21] What year?
[37:23] 2023
[37:23] yata ang pinaka
[37:25] 2023 audited
[37:26] financial statement.
[37:28] Kindly flash.
[37:58] Madam Chair,
[37:58] based po sa
[37:59] 2023
[38:00] financial statement
[38:02] ng Cali 88
[38:04] Foods Corporation,
[38:07] ang siya po
[38:08] ay merong
[38:09] net loss.
[38:10] sa halagang
[38:13] 1,880,781.66.
[38:20] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[38:22] Next na nakalista po
[38:23] sa salin ng
[38:24] Vice President
[38:25] is Madayao
[38:26] Fisheries Corporation.
[38:28] Nakarehisto pa rin po
[38:29] ba sa SEC
[38:30] at kompleto
[38:31] ang submissions
[38:31] ng
[38:32] Madayao Fisheries Corporation?
[38:34] Thank you, Chair.
[38:42] Madam Chair,
[38:54] with respect to
[38:55] Madayao Fisheries
[38:56] Incorporated,
[38:59] wala po siyang
[39:00] GIS
[39:02] ng 2021
[39:04] pero nakapagsumiti po siya
[39:06] late nga lang
[39:07] ng GIS
[39:07] for the year
[39:08] 2022
[39:09] hanggang 2024
[39:10] at wala po siyang
[39:12] naisubiting
[39:13] ah, rather
[39:17] yung GIS po
[39:18] ng 2022
[39:19] hanggang 2024
[39:20] po ay hindi niya
[39:21] naisubmit.
[39:23] Ganon din po
[39:24] ang financial statement
[39:25] from 2021
[39:26] to 2023
[39:27] not filed po.
[39:29] Madam Chair,
[39:30] ito po ang
[39:30] submission
[39:31] for Madayao
[39:32] Fisheries Corporation
[39:33] or
[39:34] Madayao Fisheries
[39:35] Incorporated
[39:36] yat
[39:36] ang na-mention niya?
[39:37] Madayao Fisheries
[39:38] Incorporated po.
[39:39] Pero ang nasa
[39:40] salin po nang
[39:41] I just want to note
[39:42] Madam Chair
[39:43] that the
[39:44] corporation
[39:45] mentioned
[39:46] in the salin
[39:47] of the Vice President
[39:48] is
[39:48] Madayao Fisheries
[39:49] Corporation.
[39:52] Anyway,
[39:52] just to make it
[39:53] just to take note
[39:54] of that.
[39:56] Next,
[39:56] Imadayao
[39:57] Mati City Ice Plant
[39:59] and Cold Storage
[40:00] Incorporated.
[40:02] Updated po ba
[40:03] ang registration
[40:03] and AFS
[40:06] submission?
[40:26] With respect po
[40:27] sa Mati City Ice Plant
[40:29] and Cold Storage
[40:31] meron po siyang report
[40:35] ng 2024
[40:39] hanggang
[40:40] 2026
[40:41] na JS.
[40:43] Ang latest income po
[40:44] Madam Chair?
[40:45] Meron ba tayo?
[41:12] Pwede po bang
[41:12] ma-flash
[41:13] ang audited
[41:15] financial statement
[41:16] ng Mati City
[41:17] Ice Plant
[41:18] and Cold Storage?
[41:20] Secretary,
[41:21] please flash.
[41:55] Madam Chair,
[41:55] based po
[41:56] sa 2023
[41:58] financial statement
[42:00] of Mati City Ice Plant
[42:01] meron po siyang
[42:04] net loss
[42:05] amounting
[42:06] 394,939 pesos.
[42:11] Thank you,
[42:11] Madam Chair.
[42:13] For
[42:13] Amyanan Shores
[42:14] Incorporated,
[42:15] kompleto po ba
[42:16] ang
[42:17] active po ba
[42:18] ang registration nito
[42:19] at kompleto
[42:20] ang submissions?
[42:20] Ang amyanan po
[42:29] ay
[42:29] hindi pa
[42:32] nakapagsubmit
[42:32] ng kanyang
[42:33] GIS
[42:33] at ng kanyang
[42:36] financial statement.
[42:39] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[42:40] Next would be
[42:41] Geometry, Security
[42:42] and Investigation
[42:43] Agency
[42:44] Incorporated.
[42:46] Nakarehistro po ba ito
[42:47] at updated
[42:48] sa mga submissions?
[42:52] Madam Chair,
[42:53] with respect to
[42:54] Geometry, Security
[42:55] and Investigation
[42:56] Agency,
[42:58] meron po siyang
[42:59] GIS
[43:00] for the year
[43:01] 2024
[43:02] and 2025,
[43:07] meron po siyang
[43:08] financial statement
[43:09] for the year
[43:10] 2024.
[43:12] Magkano po ba
[43:13] ang latest
[43:14] declared income
[43:15] ng Geometry,
[43:16] Security
[43:17] and Investigation
[43:18] Agency?
[43:21] Well, for the year
[43:22] 2024 po,
[43:24] ang Geometry,
[43:25] Security,
[43:26] and Investigation
[43:26] Agency po
[43:27] ay merong
[43:28] loss
[43:28] na
[43:29] 1,434,960.
[43:32] For 2025,
[43:34] yun yung pinaka-latest
[43:35] yata.
[43:37] Ang kanya pong
[43:38] loss
[43:40] for the year
[43:40] 2024
[43:41] ay
[43:41] 4,851,490.
[43:45] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[43:46] We'll move on
[43:47] to the last
[43:48] company
[43:48] that's
[43:49] declared
[43:49] by the Vice
[43:51] President,
[43:51] Cable 2
[43:52] ATH
[43:53] Shipping
[43:53] and Marine
[43:54] Services.
[43:55] Active po ba
[43:56] ang sec-registration
[43:57] nito
[43:58] at kumpleto
[43:58] ang mga submissions?
[44:01] Madam Chair,
[44:02] ito pong
[44:02] Cable 2
[44:03] ATH
[44:04] Finance
[44:04] Shipping
[44:05] and Marine
[44:05] Services
[44:06] ay
[44:06] narehaso lang po
[44:08] noong April
[44:08] 15,
[44:09] 2024.
[44:11] Ayon po sa aming
[44:11] record,
[44:12] wala pa po siyang
[44:13] naisubbite na
[44:14] GIS
[44:16] at
[44:18] financial
[44:20] statement.
[44:21] At wala ding
[44:21] financial
[44:23] audit
[44:25] financial
[44:26] statement.
[44:27] Ibig sabihin
[44:27] walang
[44:28] declared
[44:29] income
[44:29] so far
[44:29] on the record.
[44:30] Wala po po siyang
[44:31] report na
[44:31] nasa upit
[44:32] sa amin.
[44:33] Thank you,
[44:34] Madam Chair.
[44:35] We end
[44:36] with a brief
[44:36] manifestation.
[44:37] Batay po sa
[44:39] paglilinaw
[44:40] ng ating
[44:40] kasamahan
[44:41] mula sa
[44:42] Securities
[44:42] and Exchange
[44:43] Commission
[44:43] na patunayan
[44:45] po natin
[44:46] na may
[44:46] mga
[44:46] kumpanya
[44:47] na hindi
[44:47] kumpleto
[44:48] ang pag-submit
[44:49] o hindi
[44:49] updated
[44:50] ang pag-submit
[44:52] ng kanilang
[44:52] mga
[44:52] required
[44:53] documents,
[44:53] particular
[44:54] ang GIS
[44:55] at
[44:56] audited
[44:56] financial
[44:57] statements.
[44:59] Bagamat
[44:59] sabi nga
[45:01] ng ating
[45:02] kasaman
[45:02] si
[45:02] Congressman
[45:03] Flores,
[45:04] hindi
[45:04] naman
[45:05] obligado,
[45:08] we'd like
[45:09] to take
[45:09] note
[45:09] of this
[45:10] because
[45:10] this is
[45:11] an indication
[45:14] of
[45:14] good
[45:16] corporate
[45:16] governance
[45:17] to which
[45:17] the
[45:18] Vice
[45:18] President
[45:18] of course
[45:21] as a
[45:21] private
[45:22] citizen
[45:22] is also
[45:24] duty-bound
[45:24] for
[45:25] regulatory
[45:25] compliance
[45:26] and
[45:26] financial
[45:27] transparency.
[45:28] Second,
[45:30] at least in
[45:31] one company
[45:32] we've seen
[45:32] may discrepancy
[45:34] sa pangalan
[45:35] ng kumpanya
[45:35] at yung
[45:36] kumpanyang
[45:36] dineclare
[45:37] sa Salen
[45:38] at sa
[45:38] official records.
[45:39] I think
[45:40] that should
[45:41] be
[45:41] placed on
[45:42] record,
[45:42] Madam Chair.
[45:44] Pangatlo,
[45:46] based sa
[45:47] mga
[45:47] available
[45:47] financial
[45:48] statements,
[45:51] nakikita
[45:51] natin
[45:51] hindi
[45:52] maaaring
[45:52] magkatugmama
[45:53] ito sa
[45:54] mga
[45:54] naitalang
[45:54] kita
[45:55] o
[45:55] anumang
[45:55] financial
[45:56] transactions
[45:57] na napaulat.
[45:58] We already
[45:59] know how
[46:00] much
[46:00] the Vice
[46:00] President
[46:01] earns
[46:01] as a
[46:02] public
[46:02] record
[46:03] as
[46:03] Vice
[46:03] President
[46:04] of the
[46:04] Philippines
[46:05] and
[46:06] now
[46:06] we've
[46:06] come
[46:07] to
[46:07] understand
[46:08] the
[46:09] possible
[46:09] revenues
[46:11] earned
[46:12] from her
[46:13] private
[46:13] businesses.
[46:14] So I
[46:15] think,
[46:15] Madam Chair,
[46:16] it would
[46:16] be very
[46:16] important
[46:17] for the
[46:17] full
[46:18] appreciation
[46:18] of the
[46:19] Isha
[46:20] and
[46:20] that is
[46:20] all,
[46:21] Madam Chair.
[46:22] Thank you.
[46:23] Any other
[46:24] clarificatory
[46:24] questions for
[46:25] the SEC?
[46:26] None.
[46:27] May we
[46:28] direct the
[46:29] Committee
[46:29] Secretary to
[46:30] call the
[46:30] Vice
[46:31] President.
[46:36] Thank you,
[46:36] Madam Chair.
[46:37] May we
[46:37] know if
[46:38] the
[46:38] respondent,
[46:39] Vice
[46:39] President
[46:40] Sara
[46:40] Z.
[46:41] Duterte
[46:41] is present.
[46:44] The
[46:44] respondent
[46:45] is not
[46:45] present today,
[46:46] Madam Chair.
[46:46] Let it
[46:47] be placed
[46:47] on the
[46:47] record that
[46:48] the
[46:48] Comsec
[46:49] call again
[46:49] the
[46:50] Vice
[46:50] President.
[46:50] The
[46:51] intention
[46:51] of the
[46:52] Committee
[46:52] is to
[46:53] provide
[46:53] her
[46:53] the
[46:54] opportunity
[46:54] to
[46:55] present
[46:55] her
[46:56] evidence,
[46:57] including
[46:57] counter-evidence,
[46:59] and to
[46:59] raise
[47:00] clarificatory
[47:00] questions
[47:01] to
[47:02] resource
[47:02] representatives
[47:03] representatives
[47:04] from the
[47:05] SEC.
[47:06] That is
[47:06] for the
[47:07] record.
[47:08] If
[47:08] there are
[47:09] no more
[47:09] questions
[47:10] for the
[47:11] SEC,
[47:12] would you
[47:12] like to
[47:13] stay with
[47:13] us to
[47:14] join the
[47:15] BIR
[47:15] as our
[47:16] last
[47:16] resource
[47:17] person?
[47:17] UNIILING
[47:19] SEC.
[47:21] So with
[47:22] the
[47:22] indulgence
[47:22] of the
[47:23] members
[47:23] and our
[47:24] last
[47:24] resource
[47:25] person,
[47:26] we'll
[47:26] payagan
[47:27] po
[47:27] natin
[47:27] yung
[47:27] SEC.
[47:29] Commissioner,
[47:29] patience
[47:30] na po.
[47:32] The
[47:32] Securities
[47:33] and
[47:33] Exchange
[47:34] Commission
[47:34] representatives
[47:35] are all
[47:36] excused.
[47:37] Maraming
[47:37] maraming
[47:37] salamat
[47:38] po
[47:38] for
[47:38] spending
[47:39] your
[47:39] time
[47:39] with
[47:39] the
[47:40] Justice
[47:40] Committee.
[47:44] Now we
[47:45] come to
[47:45] our
[47:46] last
[47:46] resource
[47:47] person
[47:48] and
[47:50] we
[47:50] are
[47:50] so
[47:51] blessed
[47:51] to
[47:52] be
[47:53] with
[47:53] the
[47:54] BIR
[47:55] Commissioner
[47:56] Attorney
[47:57] Charlie
[47:57] Mendoza.
[47:58] Maraming
[47:58] salamat
[47:59] Commissioner
[47:59] you've
[47:59] been
[48:00] with
[48:00] us
[48:01] since
[48:01] this
[48:01] morning.
[48:02] No?
[48:03] Let
[48:04] me
[48:04] say
[48:04] save
[48:05] the
[48:06] best
[48:06] for
[48:06] last.
[48:08] Okay.
[48:09] So
[48:09] the
[48:09] floor
[48:09] is
[48:09] now
[48:10] open
[48:10] for
[48:10] clarificatory
[48:11] questions
[48:12] to
[48:12] the
[48:13] BIR
[48:14] Commissioner
[48:14] Attorney
[48:15] Charlie
[48:15] Mendoza.
[48:22] Any
[48:23] member?
[48:27] Madam
[48:27] Chair.
[48:31] The
[48:31] Honorable
[48:32] Reid
[48:32] Don is
[48:32] recognized.
[48:33] We'd
[48:34] like to
[48:34] know
[48:35] from
[48:35] the
[48:35] BIR
[48:35] if
[48:36] they
[48:36] had
[48:36] complied
[48:37] with
[48:38] the
[48:39] subpoena
[48:39] for
[48:41] the
[48:41] income
[48:42] tax
[48:42] returns
[48:43] and
[48:43] other
[48:43] tax
[48:44] documents
[48:44] relating
[48:46] to
[48:46] the
[48:46] Vice
[48:46] President
[48:47] Attorney
[48:48] Man
[48:48] Scarpio
[48:48] and
[48:49] their
[48:49] other
[48:49] related
[48:50] firms.
[48:51] Good
[48:52] afternoon
[48:52] Madam
[48:53] Chair
[48:53] and
[48:53] honorable
[48:53] members
[48:54] of the
[48:54] committee.
[48:55] Yes
[48:55] Madam
[48:56] Chair
[48:56] we
[48:56] confirmed
[48:57] that
[48:57] last
[48:57] April
[48:58] 14
[48:58] we
[48:59] submitted
[48:59] the
[49:00] documents
[49:00] enumerated
[49:01] in the
[49:01] subpoena
[49:02] that was
[49:03] served to the
[49:03] Bureau of Internal Revenue.
[49:04] continue.
[49:05] We have
[49:06] submitted
[49:07] the
[49:07] documents
[49:07] subject
[49:08] to the
[49:09] condition
[49:12] that the
[49:12] same
[49:12] examined
[49:13] in an
[49:13] executive
[49:14] session
[49:14] as
[49:15] provided
[49:15] by
[49:15] law.
[49:16] Thank
[49:16] you
[49:16] Madam
[49:16] Chair.
[49:18] We
[49:18] direct
[49:19] the
[49:19] committee
[49:19] secretary
[49:20] to
[49:20] kindly
[49:21] produce
[49:23] the
[49:24] sealed
[49:24] box
[49:26] I
[49:26] understand
[49:27] containing
[49:28] the
[49:29] documents
[49:30] submitted
[49:31] by
[49:31] the
[49:32] BIR.
[49:32] I
[49:42] understand
[49:43] that
[49:43] the
[49:43] honorable
[49:43] BIR
[49:44] commissioner
[49:45] is
[49:45] claiming
[49:46] confidentiality
[49:49] of the
[49:50] BIR
[49:50] documents
[49:51] so
[49:53] we
[49:54] are
[49:55] confronted
[49:55] with
[49:55] the
[49:56] question
[49:56] of
[49:58] whether
[49:58] or
[49:58] not
[49:58] we
[50:00] will
[50:00] be
[50:01] opening
[50:01] the
[50:01] box
[50:02] Madam
[50:03] Chair
[50:03] I
[50:04] believe
[50:09] that
[50:09] the
[50:09] NIRC
[50:10] prohibits
[50:12] us
[50:12] from
[50:12] discussing
[50:13] information
[50:14] about
[50:14] the
[50:15] tax
[50:15] of
[50:15] a
[50:15] person
[50:15] Madam
[50:16] Chair
[50:16] and
[50:16] I
[50:16] think
[50:16] the
[50:17] BIR
[50:18] also
[50:18] is
[50:18] also
[50:19] prohibited
[50:19] from
[50:20] divulging
[50:20] or
[50:20] discussing
[50:21] the
[50:22] contents
[50:23] of
[50:23] an
[50:23] ITR
[50:24] of
[50:24] a
[50:24] person
[50:24] Madam
[50:24] Chair
[50:25] unless
[50:25] if
[50:26] it
[50:26] is
[50:26] done
[50:26] in
[50:27] executive
[50:27] session
[50:28] Madam
[50:28] Chair
[50:28] during
[50:29] Congressional
[50:31] Committee
[50:32] hearing
[50:32] Madam
[50:32] Chair
[50:32] but
[50:33] for
[50:33] now
[50:34] we
[50:34] are
[50:35] not
[50:35] in
[50:35] a
[50:35] Congressional
[50:36] Committee
[50:36] hearing
[50:36] we
[50:37] are
[50:37] in
[50:37] an
[50:37] impeachment
[50:37] hearing
[50:38] a
[50:40] clarificatory
[50:40] hearing
[50:40] for
[50:40] that
[50:41] matter
[50:41] and
[50:42] since
[50:42] they
[50:42] are
[50:42] barred
[50:42] by
[50:43] the
[50:43] NIRC
[50:43] then
[50:44] I
[50:44] think
[50:44] it
[50:45] would
[50:45] be
[50:45] prudent
[50:46] Madam
[50:46] Chair
[50:46] not
[50:47] to
[50:47] open
[50:47] the
[50:47] box
[50:47] Madam
[50:49] Chair
[50:49] may
[50:50] we
[50:50] request
[50:50] first
[50:51] the
[50:51] BIR
[50:52] Commissioner
[50:52] to
[50:53] enlighten
[50:54] the
[50:54] Justice
[50:54] Members
[50:55] on
[50:55] the
[50:55] nature
[50:55] of
[50:56] the
[50:56] confidentiality
[50:57] of
[50:58] the
[50:58] documents
[50:59] contained
[50:59] in
[51:00] the
[51:00] box
[51:00] yes
[51:02] Madam
[51:02] Chair
[51:02] the
[51:03] National
[51:04] Internal
[51:04] Revenue
[51:05] Code
[51:05] under
[51:06] section
[51:06] 270
[51:07] expressly
[51:09] provides
[51:09] for
[51:10] unlawful
[51:11] divulgence
[51:11] of
[51:12] information
[51:12] so
[51:13] in
[51:13] essence
[51:14] the
[51:15] tax
[51:15] code
[51:16] prohibits
[51:16] the
[51:17] disclosure
[51:18] of
[51:19] a
[51:19] specific
[51:19] tax
[51:20] information
[51:21] pertaining
[51:22] to
[51:22] specific
[51:22] taxpayers
[51:23] however
[51:24] the
[51:25] law
[51:25] provides
[51:26] for
[51:27] some
[51:27] exceptions
[51:28] and
[51:29] one
[51:29] of
[51:29] the
[51:29] exceptions
[51:29] is
[51:30] provided
[51:31] in
[51:32] section
[51:32] 20
[51:33] of
[51:33] the
[51:34] National
[51:34] Internal
[51:34] Revenue
[51:35] Code
[51:35] which
[51:36] provides
[51:36] that
[51:37] we
[51:38] may
[51:38] disclose
[51:38] specific
[51:39] tax
[51:40] information
[51:40] to
[51:41] Congress
[51:42] provided
[51:43] that
[51:43] the
[51:44] examination
[51:44] shall
[51:45] be done
[51:45] in
[51:46] executive
[51:46] session
[51:46] examination
[51:49] shall
[51:50] be done
[51:51] in an
[51:51] executive
[51:52] session
[51:52] Madam
[51:53] Chair
[51:54] the
[51:54] Honorable
[51:55] DS
[51:55] JJ
[51:55] Suarez
[51:56] is
[51:56] recognized
[51:57] I
[51:57] think
[51:57] the
[51:58] point
[51:58] of
[51:59] subpoenaing
[52:01] these
[52:01] documents
[52:02] is
[52:03] for
[52:03] us
[52:03] to
[52:03] come
[52:04] to
[52:05] a
[52:05] informative
[52:07] decision
[52:07] with
[52:08] regards
[52:09] to
[52:09] whether
[52:10] or
[52:10] not
[52:10] there
[52:10] is
[52:11] probable
[52:11] cause
[52:12] now
[52:13] may
[52:13] I
[52:14] get
[52:14] clarification
[52:15] from
[52:16] the
[52:17] chairman
[52:17] or
[52:18] from
[52:18] the
[52:18] members
[52:18] of
[52:19] the
[52:19] committee
[52:19] how
[52:20] then
[52:20] are
[52:21] we
[52:21] supposed
[52:21] to
[52:22] make
[52:22] both
[52:23] ends
[52:23] meet
[52:24] with
[52:24] regards
[52:25] to
[52:25] this
[52:26] ICS
[52:26] specific
[52:27] gray
[52:27] area
[52:28] because
[52:28] Congress
[52:30] Flores
[52:31] should
[52:31] have
[52:32] an
[52:32] executive
[52:32] session
[52:33] during
[52:34] a
[52:35] congressional
[52:36] hearing
[52:36] correct
[52:37] however
[52:38] we
[52:39] don't
[52:39] find
[52:39] ourselves
[52:40] in a
[52:40] congressional
[52:41] hearing
[52:41] we
[52:41] find
[52:42] ourselves
[52:42] in an
[52:43] impeachment
[52:43] proceeding
[52:44] so
[52:45] may
[52:46] I
[52:46] find
[52:46] out
[52:47] from
[52:47] the
[52:48] good
[52:48] chairman
[52:48] is
[52:50] it
[52:50] one
[52:50] and
[52:51] the
[52:51] same
[52:51] in
[52:51] so
[52:51] far
[52:52] as
[52:52] we
[52:52] are
[52:52] still
[52:53] in
[52:53] a
[52:53] hearing
[52:53] although
[52:54] an
[52:54] impeachment
[52:55] hearing
[52:55] can we
[52:56] just
[52:56] call
[52:58] for
[52:58] an
[52:58] executive
[52:59] session
[52:59] and
[53:00] look
[53:01] at
[53:01] the
[53:01] contents
[53:02] of
[53:02] that
[53:02] box
[53:03] I
[53:04] understand
[53:04] that
[53:05] the
[53:05] requirements
[53:06] shared
[53:07] to us
[53:07] by
[53:07] the
[53:08] honorable
[53:08] commissioner
[53:09] is
[53:09] cumulative
[53:10] which
[53:11] means
[53:12] that
[53:12] this
[53:14] must
[53:14] be
[53:14] both
[53:15] a
[53:16] legislative
[53:17] inquiry
[53:17] and
[53:18] at
[53:18] the
[53:18] same
[53:19] time
[53:19] an
[53:20] executive
[53:21] session
[53:22] done
[53:22] in
[53:23] its
[53:23] occasion
[53:24] which
[53:25] means
[53:25] that
[53:25] the
[53:26] executive
[53:27] session
[53:27] must
[53:28] be
[53:28] done
[53:28] during
[53:30] a
[53:31] legislative
[53:32] inquiry
[53:32] but
[53:34] of
[53:35] course
[53:35] the
[53:35] members
[53:35] are
[53:36] correct
[53:36] in
[53:36] pointing
[53:37] out
[53:37] that
[53:38] this
[53:38] is
[53:38] not
[53:38] an
[53:39] ordinary
[53:40] inquiry
[53:40] in
[53:41] aid
[53:41] of
[53:41] legislation
[53:42] Madam
[53:44] Chair
[53:44] Madam
[53:45] Chair
[53:45] Madam
[53:46] Chair
[53:46] The
[53:47] Honorable
[53:47] Diaz
[53:48] Suarez
[53:48] I
[53:48] just
[53:48] want
[53:49] to
[53:49] add
[53:49] no
[53:49] but
[53:50] we
[53:51] are
[53:52] still
[53:52] you
[53:54] know
[53:54] in
[53:55] function
[53:56] or
[53:56] performing
[53:57] our
[53:57] legislative
[53:58] duty
[53:59] because
[54:00] as
[54:01] legislators
[54:01] part of
[54:02] our
[54:02] duty
[54:03] is to
[54:03] convene
[54:04] ourselves
[54:04] into
[54:05] quote
[54:06] unquote
[54:07] how do
[54:09] you say
[54:09] it
[54:09] impeachment
[54:11] proceedings
[54:12] to determine
[54:12] probable
[54:13] cause
[54:13] that is
[54:13] part of
[54:14] our
[54:14] legislative
[54:15] duty
[54:15] I believe
[54:16] although
[54:16] it's not
[54:16] lawmaking
[54:17] maybe
[54:18] congressman
[54:19] Rufus
[54:19] can shed
[54:20] light
[54:20] light
[54:20] because
[54:20] he's
[54:21] more
[54:21] wise
[54:23] lawyer
[54:25] than
[54:25] I'm
[54:26] not
[54:26] a
[54:27] lawyer
[54:27] but
[54:27] this is
[54:29] still
[54:29] part
[54:30] of
[54:30] our
[54:30] duty
[54:31] and
[54:31] our
[54:31] function
[54:32] as
[54:32] legislators
[54:33] the
[54:36] honorable
[54:36] and
[54:37] then
[54:37] the
[54:37] honorable
[54:38] Keith
[54:38] Flores
[54:39] madam
[54:40] chair
[54:40] first
[54:40] of
[54:40] all
[54:40] may
[54:40] I
[54:41] ask
[54:41] the
[54:41] BIR
[54:42] to
[54:43] read
[54:43] again
[54:43] the
[54:44] exception
[54:47] provided
[54:47] in the
[54:48] law
[54:48] may
[54:50] I
[54:50] read
[54:51] section
[54:51] 20
[54:52] paragraph
[54:53] A
[54:54] madam
[54:55] chair
[54:55] submission
[54:56] of pertinent
[54:56] information
[54:57] to
[54:57] congress
[54:58] the
[54:59] provision
[54:59] of
[54:59] section
[54:59] 270
[55:00] which
[55:01] pertains
[55:02] to
[55:02] unlawful
[55:02] divulgence
[55:03] of
[55:03] information
[55:04] of
[55:04] this
[55:05] code
[55:05] to
[55:05] the
[55:05] contrary
[55:06] not
[55:06] withstanding
[55:06] the
[55:07] commissioner
[55:08] shall
[55:08] upon
[55:09] request
[55:09] of
[55:09] congress
[55:10] and
[55:11] in
[55:11] aid
[55:11] of
[55:11] legislation
[55:12] furnish
[55:13] its
[55:13] appropriate
[55:14] committee
[55:14] pertinent
[55:15] information
[55:15] including
[55:17] but not
[55:17] limited
[55:17] to
[55:18] industry
[55:19] audits
[55:19] collection
[55:20] performance
[55:21] data
[55:21] status
[55:22] reports
[55:23] and
[55:23] criminal
[55:23] actions
[55:24] initiated
[55:24] against
[55:25] persons
[55:26] and
[55:26] taxpayers
[55:27] returns
[55:27] provided
[55:29] however
[55:29] that
[55:30] any
[55:30] return
[55:30] or
[55:30] return
[55:31] information
[55:31] which
[55:32] can
[55:32] be
[55:33] associated
[55:33] with
[55:34] or
[55:34] otherwise
[55:35] identify
[55:36] directly
[55:37] or
[55:37] indirectly
[55:38] a
[55:38] particular
[55:39] taxpayer
[55:39] shall
[55:40] be
[55:40] furnished
[55:41] the
[55:41] appropriate
[55:42] committee
[55:42] of
[55:42] congress
[55:43] only
[55:43] when
[55:44] sitting
[55:44] in
[55:44] executive
[55:45] session
[55:45] unless
[55:46] such
[55:46] taxpayer
[55:47] otherwise
[55:48] consents
[55:49] in writing
[55:49] to such
[55:50] disclosure
[55:51] Madam
[55:53] Chair
[55:54] I
[55:55] agree
[55:56] with
[55:56] the
[55:56] Deputy
[55:58] Speaker
[55:58] Suarez
[55:59] that
[55:59] this
[56:00] is
[56:00] a
[56:00] hearing
[56:01] of
[56:02] the
[56:02] Committee
[56:02] on
[56:03] Justice
[56:03] and
[56:05] so
[56:07] we
[56:09] may
[56:09] inspect
[56:12] the
[56:13] documents
[56:13] for as
[56:15] long as
[56:15] we are
[56:15] in
[56:15] executive
[56:16] session
[56:16] that's
[56:18] my
[56:18] position
[56:18] Madam
[56:18] Chair
[56:19] Madam
[56:19] Chair
[56:19] Madam
[56:19] Chair
[56:20] we
[56:20] know
[56:20] the
[56:21] position
[56:21] of
[56:21] the
[56:21] Honorable
[56:22] Tino
[56:22] the
[56:22] Honorable
[56:23] Flores
[56:23] first
[56:24] and
[56:24] then
[56:25] the
[56:25] Honorable
[56:26] DS
[56:26] Kunghun
[56:27] Thank
[56:27] you
[56:27] Madam
[56:28] Chair
[56:28] I
[56:28] too
[56:29] would
[56:29] like
[56:29] to
[56:29] know
[56:29] what's
[56:30] inside
[56:30] that
[56:30] box
[56:31] but
[56:31] I
[56:31] think
[56:31] we
[56:32] have
[56:32] to
[56:32] distinguish
[56:32] that
[56:33] there
[56:33] are
[56:33] two
[56:34] functions
[56:34] of
[56:34] Congress
[56:35] one
[56:35] is
[56:36] the
[56:36] lawmaking
[56:36] function
[56:36] and
[56:37] the
[56:37] other
[56:37] one
[56:37] is
[56:37] right
[56:38] now
[56:39] the
[56:40] accountability
[56:40] provisions
[56:41] of the
[56:41] Constitution
[56:42] we
[56:43] are
[56:43] gathered
[56:45] here
[56:45] today
[56:45] not
[56:46] for
[56:46] the
[56:47] purpose
[56:47] of
[56:47] our
[56:48] lawmaking
[56:48] functions
[56:49] Madam
[56:49] Chair
[56:49] we
[56:50] are
[56:50] now
[56:50] here
[56:51] today
[56:51] as
[56:53] an
[56:54] impeachment
[56:55] proceed
[56:55] part of
[56:56] the
[56:56] impeachment
[56:57] proceeding
[56:57] so
[56:57] the
[56:58] provisions
[56:59] that
[57:00] was
[57:00] mentioned
[57:00] by
[57:01] our
[57:01] good
[57:02] officer
[57:05] Madam
[57:05] Chair
[57:05] does
[57:06] not
[57:06] apply
[57:06] if
[57:07] we
[57:08] look
[57:08] at
[57:08] the
[57:09] exceptions
[57:09] Madam
[57:10] Chair
[57:10] The
[57:13] Honorable
[57:14] DS
[57:14] Kunghun
[57:14] Thank
[57:16] you
[57:16] Madam
[57:16] Chair
[57:17] Commissioner
[57:18] Lahat
[57:20] po
[57:20] ng
[57:20] opisina
[57:22] ng
[57:23] ating
[57:23] gobyerno
[57:23] nagdeclare
[57:25] na
[57:25] ng
[57:25] kanilang
[57:27] mga
[57:27] dokumento
[57:28] naglabas
[57:29] ng
[57:29] kanilang
[57:30] dokumento
[57:31] so
[57:32] sana
[57:33] gawin
[57:35] din
[57:36] ng
[57:36] BIR
[57:37] yung
[57:38] narapat
[57:39] kasi
[57:39] napaka
[57:39] importante
[57:40] po
[57:40] ng
[57:40] mga
[57:41] dokumentong
[57:41] ito
[57:42] mula
[57:42] sa
[57:42] BIR
[57:43] Malalaman
[57:44] lang
[57:44] ng
[57:44] committee
[57:44] kung
[57:45] totoo
[57:45] ang
[57:46] mga
[57:46] deklarasyon
[57:46] ni
[57:47] Vice
[57:47] President
[57:47] Sara
[57:47] Duterte
[57:48] ng
[57:49] kanyang
[57:49] salin
[57:49] kapag
[57:50] sinuri
[57:51] ang
[57:51] dokumentong
[57:51] isinimiti
[57:52] nito
[57:53] at
[57:54] ng
[57:54] kanyang
[57:54] asawa
[57:55] sa
[57:56] BIR
[57:56] so
[57:57] napaka
[57:58] importante
[57:58] ito
[57:58] sana
[57:59] tumulad
[58:00] na po
[58:01] tayo
[58:01] sa
[58:01] AMLOC
[58:01] at
[58:02] i-disclose
[58:03] kung
[58:03] ano
[58:03] yung
[58:04] mga
[58:04] dokumento
[58:05] BIR
[58:08] Commissioner
[58:09] would you
[58:09] like
[58:10] to
[58:10] respond
[58:10] to
[58:10] DS
[58:11] Gong
[58:11] Hon
[58:11] Yes
[58:12] Madam
[58:12] Chair
[58:12] Nauunawaan
[58:13] po
[58:13] namin
[58:13] ang
[58:13] kahalagahan
[58:14] ng
[58:14] mga
[58:14] dokumentong
[58:15] isinimiti
[58:16] namin
[58:16] at
[58:16] sinugpina
[58:17] ng
[58:18] House
[58:18] Committee
[58:19] on
[58:19] Justice
[58:19] nauunawaan
[58:20] rin
[58:20] po
[58:20] namin
[58:20] ang
[58:21] kahalagahan
[58:22] ng
[58:22] proceedings
[58:23] na ito
[58:23] nagkataon
[58:24] lamang
[58:24] po
[58:24] na
[58:25] maliwanag
[58:25] na
[58:26] nakasaad
[58:26] sa
[58:26] batas
[58:27] ang
[58:27] mga
[58:27] limitasyon
[58:28] sa
[58:28] pagbibigay
[58:29] ng
[58:29] informasyon
[58:30] tungkol
[58:30] sa
[58:30] isang
[58:31] particular
[58:31] na
[58:31] taxpayer
[58:32] at
[58:32] kami
[58:33] po
[58:33] ay
[58:33] obligado
[58:34] na
[58:34] sundin
[58:34] ang
[58:34] batas
[58:35] ca
[58:50] all
[58:50] ito
[58:51] negotiated
[58:51] by
[58:54] the
[58:54] committee
[58:54] in
[58:55] an
[58:55] open
[58:56] session
[58:57] as
[58:57] such
[58:57] as
[58:57] this
[58:57] although
[58:59] we
[59:00] have
[59:01] to
[59:02] be
[59:02] very
[59:02] cautious
[59:03] about
[59:04] the
[59:04] way
[59:04] conduct this proceeding. In fact, Madam Chair,
[59:10] if I may remind the members of this committee, the chair
[59:13] herself, whenever there is a question that is outside
[59:18] of a testimony or affidavit or outside
[59:21] the reported documents by each of the
[59:26] agencies, she automatically calls that
[59:30] particular, for example, question as probing
[59:33] in order to avoid, you know, in order to avoid us
[59:37] giving impression that we are doing a mini
[59:42] trial. So again, I understand that the chairperson of
[59:46] the BIR also wants to cooperate
[59:50] with the committee, but she is also tied up with
[59:55] a certain, you know, limitations as what
[59:59] he already intimated to us that is very clear under
[1:00:03] the law. If Madam Speaker, if the law intends for this
[1:00:07] committee to hold or to discuss this particular
[1:00:13] documents inside the box openly in the committee
[1:00:19] hearing, the law would have specified an exemption
[1:00:23] to include impeachment hearing. Similar with the
[1:00:26] Bank Secrecy Law. The Bank Secrecy Law was very
[1:00:29] specific that when it comes to a impeachment proceedings, that
[1:00:35] is among of its, among the exception that meaning to say it
[1:00:41] cannot absolutely be invoked a hundred percent in so far as the
[1:00:51] intention of that particular Bank Secrecy is to proceed with the impeachment
[1:00:58] proceedings or hearing. Kung, kung sa batas po, kung meron po sa Bank si
[1:01:03] Crisilo, na-specify mo, na-specify niya mismo na ito ay
[1:01:08] exemption para sa purpose niya is impeachment proceeding. Kung ganun din po yung
[1:01:14] intention ng batas na yon, na sinight ni Commissioner, dapat sinight na po doon.
[1:01:20] Pero in this case, wala po. Ang sinabi lang po doon is in aid of legislation that can only be
[1:01:26] open and that can only also be discussed in an executive session. Had the law intends
[1:01:31] also to include as an exemption impeachment proceeding, then it would have been spelled
[1:01:38] out clearly in that law. Since na wala po, we cannot interpret and provide our own
[1:01:43] interpretation doon sa batas na yon, which is clearly wala na po doon na sinasabi na
[1:01:49] impeachment proceedings. So that is only my, uh, ano, that is all of my, uh, my, my
[1:01:55] manifestation. Ako lang, Madam Chair, I'm, I would like to be very, very cautious on how we
[1:02:01] proceed with this impeachment hearing. Wagong sana natin mabigyan kung sino man
[1:02:06] yung nag-aantay na magkamali tayo para questionin po yung integrity and
[1:02:12] credibility nito proceeding na ito, Madam Chair. Maraming salamat po. Madam Chair.
[1:02:16] We know the manifestation of the Honorable Adjong. Now we recognize the Honorable Lordan Suwan.
[1:02:22] Madam Chair, I echo the objection of Vice Chair Jonathan Keith Flores and Congressman Zia Adjong
[1:02:30] in that when we are prevented from asking probing questions in the same manner, the impeachment
[1:02:39] does not give us license for unlimited discovery. And so we must take note of the objection of
[1:02:48] the BIR commissioner that section 270 of the National Internal Revenue Code criminalizes
[1:02:57] the divulgence of tax returns by BIR officials. This is very clear. And the only exception that
[1:03:04] I can think of is the one mentioned by the commissioner. And even then, if we invoke that
[1:03:10] section, it refers to inquiries in aid of legislation. And I think that this impeachment proceeding is so
[1:03:19] far away from an inquiry in aid of legislation. Furthermore, Madam Chair, the subject or the or
[1:03:28] the respondent in the impeachment case is the Vice President. Attorney Man Scarpio, whose tax returns we
[1:03:35] are going to expose here now is a private citizen, he is her husband, and he is not the one who is the
[1:03:43] respondent in the impeachment case, which also brings us to section three of the Data Privacy Act, which
[1:03:52] which treats income tax returns as sensitive personal information, which is included in the
[1:04:02] heightened privacy protections of that statute. And it is not a shield that vanishes whenever Congress
[1:04:10] decides to take up as a subpoena pen. And so, inulit ko po, Madam Chair, na hindi dapat talaga natin
[1:04:17] ilabas yung ITR ni attorney Man Scarpio dito sa hearing natin ngayon. Madam Chair, may may I ask first
[1:04:25] the BIR Commissioner, if indeed the Justice Committee has no authority to open this box, then when, when
[1:04:40] will be the right time to see the contents of this box? Actually, Madam Chair, when we submitted the
[1:04:50] documents subject of the subpoena to the House Committee on Justice, we are very much aware as
[1:04:58] well of the requirement that the same should be in aid of legislation. And our premise when we submitted
[1:05:07] the documents is that the proceedings of the committee is also in aid of legislation, given the
[1:05:14] plenary power of Congress to legislate. This is just my opinion, Madam Chair, whatever that may be discussed
[1:05:25] here could possibly the basis of a possible amendment of, for example, the bank secrecy law or of the tax code
[1:05:33] itself. And so again, Madam Chair, yes, we are aware that when we submit the documents, it must be in aid of
[1:05:39] legislation. Our premise when we submitted the documents is that this proceeding is also in aid
[1:05:45] of legislation. Now, applying what the law expressly says, it can only be examined if the two requisites
[1:05:53] concur in aid of legislation and in an executive session. Thank you, Madam Chair. But this is not an
[1:05:59] inquiry in aid of legislation. As clearly pointed out by the members, this is entirely different
[1:06:05] proceeding. This is an impeachment proceeding. If that is the case, Madam Chair, then Section 20 will
[1:06:13] not apply. What is Section 20? The submission of pertinent information by the Commissioner to Congress.
[1:06:24] That is an exception. That is an exception, Madam Chair. Madam Chair. The Honorable Terry Redon. Madam Chair,
[1:06:34] I'd like to state that Section 20, which is being stated, no? Can you state it for the record?
[1:06:39] The Honorable Commissioner, please. The provision again. Can you state it again for the record,
[1:06:45] please? That is Section 20 NIRC. Yes, Section 20 NIRC. Can we flash it? Submission to Congress.
[1:06:51] Secretariat, Section 20 NIRC. Please read it for the record, please. Restate it again, please.
[1:07:12] Yeah. Section 20, letter A, submission of pertinent information to Congress. The provision of Section
[1:07:19] 270 of this code to the contrary notwithstanding, the Commissioner shall, upon request of Congress
[1:07:25] and in aid of legislation, furnish its appropriate committee pertinent information, including but not
[1:07:32] limited to industry audits, collection performance data, status reports and criminal actions initiated
[1:07:40] against persons and taxpayers' returns, provided, however, that any return or return information
[1:07:48] which can be associated with or otherwise identify directly or indirectly a particular taxpayer shall
[1:07:57] be furnished the appropriate committee of Congress only when sitting in executive session unless such
[1:08:04] taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. Thank you for restating the provision.
[1:08:11] I'd like to state for the record that the subpoena given to the BIR, Madam Chair, is not a request.
[1:08:19] It is part of a compulsory process in which the BIR had complied. So my question to BIR is whether or not
[1:08:29] this particular provision actually applies to this particular submission to the impeachment proceeding.
[1:08:36] Because we are not requesting anything from the Commission. We are requiring under compulsory processes
[1:08:45] of impeachment of impeachment rules for the BIR to actually submit these documents of the Vice President,
[1:08:54] of Attorney Carpio and their firms to Congress. And second point, to be clear, when the Commission actually
[1:09:02] submits it to Congress, the penalty is not on members of Congress. No, it is the penalty is on
[1:09:12] on BIR officers, employees, no? When they make a divulgence. Is that correct? So in the event that
[1:09:24] the documents are actually submitted and ultimately unsealed by this committee during impeachment proceedings,
[1:09:36] what criminal offense actually exists on a BIR officials when the persons that will actually unseal
[1:09:46] and look into the documents will not be the BIR. It will be the members of this committee. Madam Chair.
[1:09:56] I find it strange really, no? Madam Chair. Parang, you are so near yet you're so far. Madam Chair.
[1:10:05] The BIR apparently complied with the subpoena by bringing to us the sealed box. But because of that issue
[1:10:13] of confidentiality, we cannot open the box. Madam Chair. Honorable Tino. Madam Chair, first of all,
[1:10:23] we note that the BIR themselves have a broad interpretation, which I happen to agree with,
[1:10:34] with regard to the meaning of in aid of legislation. Now, ibig sabihin,
[1:10:38] my understanding is that Congress discharging its duties. So the impeachment process in that broad sense
[1:10:51] will also be covered by in aid of legislation. Katulad ganang nabangkit, no? There are many issues
[1:10:58] that have arisen here, which may be the subject of legislation. For example, yung mga problema sa bank
[1:11:08] secrecy law. So, kaya nga po ang sinabi ko kanina, ang aking position ay covered na ito. Pwede. For as long as
[1:11:22] the documents are inspected by this committee in executive session. Pero kung hindi naman, I mean,
[1:11:30] kailangan pa ba, if for example, I file a resolution in aid of legislation which also results in the subpoena
[1:11:44] of the same documents, di pwede na. Ganun po ba ang sinasabi ng committee, no? In other words, the contents
[1:11:57] of the documents are not beyond the reach of this committee, no? And so, I would subscribe to the
[1:12:05] broad interpretation of the phrase in aid of legislation. Madam Chair.
[1:12:12] We know the manifestation of the Honorable Tinio. Now, we recognize the Honorable Karen Lagbas.
[1:12:17] Madam Chair, there is a Latin maxim which provides
[1:12:20] expression only as exclusion alterios. This means that the express mention of one thing implies the
[1:12:28] exclusion of another. It is very clear that the officials, officers, or employees of the BIR
[1:12:35] are prohibited from divulging information regarding the taxpayer or any information relative thereto.
[1:12:42] And there is only one exemption. If the Congress requests in aid of legislation, and yes, Madam Chair,
[1:12:49] should we allow BIR to violate this specific prohibition, they will be subjected to penalties.
[1:12:55] Kawawa naman po sila, Madam Chair. Nag-comply naman po sila sa subpoena. They are here.
[1:13:01] They waited for more than nine hours. Nag-comply sila andito po yung box. Sana naman magiging sensitive
[1:13:08] na rin tayo by at very least complying with what is provided for by the law. That is all, Madam Chair.
[1:13:15] So, when is the correct time to open the box, Commissioner? No. Because there are two requirements,
[1:13:23] inquiry and aid and executive session. Both should be present. And assuming that the committee will
[1:13:34] decide not to open, may I just ask, when is the correct time to open the box? Commissioner?
[1:13:43] Well, if the committee says that this is not in aid of legislation, then Section 20A will
[1:13:57] not apply. And therefore, what we will do, Madam Chair, is to withdraw our submission.
[1:14:03] Madam Chair. This has been submitted already. I'd rather keep this even when it's sealed.
[1:14:12] What do you mean withdraw your submission? You will take this back? The box?
[1:14:16] Yes, Madam Chair. Because when we submitted the documents... To be specific, Commissioner,
[1:14:23] in the event that the committee votes in favor of probable cause, assuming only for the purpose
[1:14:30] of discussion that the impeachment complaint is transmitted to the Senate, will they be
[1:14:37] in the correct position to be in the correct position to open this box? I'm referring to the Senators.
[1:14:44] Uh, well, if we go by the specific statutory exceptions, Madam Chair, an impeachment proceeding or an
[1:14:54] impeachment trial, it's not one... Can you speak louder, Kom?
[1:14:58] If I go by the specific statutory exceptions, Madam Chair... It's not part of your exception. It doesn't
[1:15:06] make mention at all of impeachment proceeding. Precisely, Madam Chair. So that is not... What
[1:15:15] I am saying is that an impeachment proceeding or an impeachment trial is not one of the exceptions...
[1:15:21] So even the Senators cannot open this box? If we go by the provisions of the law, Madam Chair,
[1:15:31] then there is no basis as well for the disclosure. Again, Madam Chair. Madam Chair? Madam Chair.
[1:15:40] This is such an absurd situation. The Honorable Rurik Padiernos and then the Honorable Tino and then the
[1:15:46] Honorable DS Suarez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I want to ask some clarificatory questions. Is that about the box?
[1:15:57] Yes. Yes. Yes. Because yung na-mention po kasi Madam Chair ni BIR Commissioner, I'm...
[1:16:05] This representation is in the position that impeachment proceedings is sui generis.
[1:16:12] It's a class of its own, different from yung na-mention po na in aid of legislation. So,
[1:16:19] So, I just wanted to, again, if I heard it correctly from the Commissioner, Madam Chair, if the section that
[1:16:32] was mentioned a while ago does not apply, does it mean that you, ano, you have to get the box? Meaning you're
[1:16:43] not bound because wala nga pong basis eh, ang pagbigay. So, that's the only way that you will submit.
[1:16:52] Medyo mahirap po tong sitwasyon natin kasi po, uh, we don't have a specific law to to say that,
[1:17:01] that, um, pwede po talaga niyang ibigayan except yun lang po yung basis niya. So, I just wanted to
[1:17:07] get a clarification from the Commissioner. Madam Chair, had it, as mentioned by, uh,
[1:17:16] Representative Adyong a while ago, had it been the intention that the impeachment proceeding
[1:17:23] be an exception to Section 2270 of the National Internal Revenue Code, then the law would have said
[1:17:31] so, as it did in the bank secrecy law, where it is explicitly provided that an impeachment proceeding
[1:17:39] is an exception to the confidentiality of bank deposits. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, Madam Chair,
[1:18:03] Are you finished Honorable Padernos? Madam Chair, maybe, uh, uh, the committee should
[1:18:11] address this by, uh, voting on the matter after the Honorable Tinio makes this manifest. Let's hear first the
[1:18:20] position of the Justice Members. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, Honorable Tinio and then Honorable Dilma.
[1:18:28] So, just to be clear, Madam Chair, mukhang ang nangyayari ngayon, originally, the position of the
[1:18:34] DIR was, correct me if I'm wrong, uh, kaya po nila daw, kaya daw po nila sinabmit sa committee yung mga
[1:18:43] dokumento, dahil sa kanilang pagtingin, uh, covered nung exception sa batas, na yung, dahil in
[1:18:55] interpret nila, in interpret nila broadly yung phrase na in aid of legislation, kaya nila
[1:19:02] binigay yan, pero ang, ang requirement lang nila, or ang, parang condition lang nila, ay dapat in
[1:19:10] executive session. Tama po ba, Commissioner? That is correct, Madam Chair. O, so yun po ang original na
[1:19:17] position nila, no, na, it falls within the exception, uh, we interpret the phrase, uh, in aid of
[1:19:26] legislation broadly, as Congress exercising all its functions. Okay, so therefore, pwede, basta in
[1:19:34] executive session. However, mukhang nakumbinse si Commissioner at ang BIR ni Congressman Adyong,
[1:19:41] kaya, kaya, kaya, ngayon mukhang nagbago na po ang position nyo, at kaya nga po sabi, i-withdraw na
[1:19:48] nila. Tama po ba? Hindi, uh, hindi po, uh, kasi po, kung sinasabi po ng committee mismo na hindi
[1:19:56] ito in aid of legislation, eh, hindi po namin po pwedeng i-invoke ang section 28, kaya
[1:20:01] kinakailangang i-withdraw namin. Opo, so, lumalabas, mas nakumbinse ng committee as a whole,
[1:20:07] batay sa mga naririnig, no, na, well, hindi nga ito in, uh, in aid of legislation,
[1:20:14] therefore, therefore, hindi, no. Pero, again, this is under consideration by the committee,
[1:20:22] at ako po, actually, sumasang-ayon nga po ako sa naging original na position ng BIR na,
[1:20:30] uh, broadly, you know, uh, yun ang ibig sabihin ng, uh, ng provision na yun,
[1:20:38] ng exception na yun. Otherwise, Madam Chair, yung sa tanong nyo, kailan pwedeng buksan yan,
[1:20:45] kung magiging stricto tayo sa in aid of legislation, then, as I said earlier, I may file a, a house
[1:20:53] resolution in aid of legislation requesting the same documents at lalabas, pwede na,
[1:21:01] diba, for as long as it is in executive session, no. And also, so, in other words, ordinary yung
[1:21:08] resolution lang, pwede na nating buksan yan, kung ganun. Samantala, dun sa tanong nyo pa,
[1:21:14] further, kung, uh, umabot sa trial sa Senado ito, eh, kahit ang Senate sitting as an
[1:21:21] impeachment court, hindi nila pwedeng buksan yan, kung ganun, diba, dahil, ah, makitid ang
[1:21:28] magiging interpretasyon dun sa in aid of legislation. So, parang ganun po ang, ang
[1:21:34] sitwasyon ngayon, ah, eh, kailangan mag-antay tayo sa pag-file ng resolution in aid of
[1:21:41] legislation, ah, at maaaring masilip in executive session ang mga nilalaman yan. Or, we can go with
[1:21:51] the interpretation that, ah, in aid of legislation, is in a very broad and generic, ah, meaning.
[1:22:01] Parang ganun po, Madam Chair. Now, let's hear from the Honorable Delima.
[1:22:06] Thank you, Madam Chair. This seems to be, this matter seems to be a gray area. Pero ito pong
[1:22:13] pananaw ko. The position of the only exception to the rule of confidentiality of those records
[1:22:19] is kapag ang Congress ang house ay nag-request in aid of legislation, but subject to that limitation,
[1:22:30] that it should be an executive session, actually renders our role in an impeachment case, in an
[1:22:37] impeachment proceedings, inferior to that role as an, as a body with legislative functions. Because
[1:22:48] ours, when sitting here, in an impeachment proceedings, is a special constitutional duty.
[1:22:54] So, hindi ko po, hindi po katanggap-taanggap sa akin, ang sasabihin po ngayon ng the Honorable
[1:23:00] BIR Commissioner, na babawiin na lang namin ang, ah, ang kahon na yan, kasi nga, hindi siya, hindi siya
[1:23:10] sakop sa exception, which is when mag-request in aid of legislation. When our role, sitting in an impeachment
[1:23:18] proceedings is a special constitutional duty, it is superior to that, as when we are acting
[1:23:25] merely as a legislative body. Yun po ang aking position. But of course, the issue of cautiousness
[1:23:33] is another matter. Kaya nga ho, sinatawag kong gray matter po ito. Pero insulto po sa house,
[1:23:42] through this committee, in an impeachment proceedings, nasasabihin na ito, dahil hindi ito in aid of
[1:23:50] legislation, ay hindi tayo sakop ng exception. Even if hindi nakalagay sa batas. Tungkol lang yun
[1:23:58] nun sa pag-request. But sabi nga po ni Congressman Ridon, ay sabi na po ito, hindi po ito ordinary
[1:24:06] request from the House of Representatives. So yun po ang aking position.
[1:24:11] Madam Chair.
[1:24:13] We commend all the meaningful and vital opinions of the justice members. We've been here for eight and a half
[1:24:21] hours already. Just to remind all of you, no? And I think we are very much divided with regards to the
[1:24:29] question of whether we will be opening this or not. But definitely, please join me, my fellow members.
[1:24:36] We will not be returning this to BIR. The only issue is whether or not we will open the same. Can we defer the
[1:24:47] resolution of this issue? With the indulgence of my fellow members, with the indulgence of Commissioner Mendoza,
[1:24:57] hindi po namin ito ibabalik. Batid po namin kami confronted ng question kung maaari ba namin itong buksan
[1:25:07] o hindi. Pero mas mamarapatin po namin alagaan ang kahong ito, kahit po ito'y selyado. Habang amin pong
[1:25:15] pinag-aaralan ang tamang posisyon ng Justice Committee kung bubuksan o hindi. Having said so?
[1:25:23] I move that we lay on the table the opening of the contents of the said box until we find the true legal
[1:25:33] position and avoid any constitutional constraints moving forward. So move for that, Chair.
[1:25:39] Madam Chair. There is a motion to lay on the table the opening of the box. The same has been seconded.
[1:25:44] Honorable Rufus Rodriguez. This is a very difficult question of law. It involves the philosophy of law.
[1:25:50] There are two kinds of interpretation when there are two conflicting laws. Whether you are in the
[1:25:58] positive school, that is Justice Kalia of the Supreme Court of the United States, or you belong to the
[1:26:04] spirit of the law, spirit of the law school. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the positive school of law, that is
[1:26:14] precisely what the National Internal Revenue Code says. In the positivist approach of law, and lawyers
[1:26:21] will know this because you all took a theory of the law, it is you confine yourself in the four corners of the
[1:26:30] positive law. That is positivism. Correct, Commissioner? Because you're a lawyer. And so you took a philosophy.
[1:26:39] What law school did you go to? I'm a product of San Pedro University. Oh, very good law school. So therefore, in the
[1:26:50] positive school, this is an issue in whether the NIRC, in the four corners of the NIRC, the
[1:26:58] National Internal Revenue Code, it is clear there that it can only be done in aid of legislation and in executive session. So that is the positive law.
[1:27:10] That is the positive law. In other words, if you follow that trend of law, there can be no opening of
[1:27:16] this because we can never convert ourselves into an executive session or an aid of legislation because you have
[1:27:23] another function right now, which is impeachment. Now, what do you say about that positive school of thought?
[1:27:31] Because these are the final points, Mr. Chairman. What does the lawyer from San Pedro
[1:27:39] say? Because we now have this because I will then ask you, the other law or rules that will govern this is the
[1:27:50] rules of impeachment, which has the effect of law, which provides that there is absolute power, the power to issue the
[1:28:01] law. The subpoena dosis tecum. And the spirit of the law is accountability. So we go to the
[1:28:07] spirit of the law. We have to use therefore our rules that says the committee, the justice committee acting as a
[1:28:17] constituent, as acting as a impeachment court can subpoena you to submit. So which one now would you agree? The
[1:28:25] NARC, the positivist school of law or the spirit of the law. So in other words, your NARC or for our
[1:28:33] justice members, the, our spirit of the law. That this is different. This is sui generis. We have given so
[1:28:41] much power because this accountability of very high officials. So which one would you now say that governs?
[1:28:48] Because you are a lawyer. Is it the positivist school or the spirit of the law school?
[1:28:57] Rules of impeachment, NARC, which will now prevail?
[1:29:02] Would you like to answer Commissioner Mendoza?
[1:29:05] Madam Chair, for now, I am taking the conservative view. We will abide by what the law expressly says.
[1:29:16] Very good answer. Because precisely, Justice Scalia is the positivist in all history. Scalia who died of the Supreme
[1:29:26] Court. Only would, if there's any issue, you go only to the four corners of the law. You
[1:29:31] not go to the spirit of what is said there. However, you also have a situation that we have the power. This
[1:29:40] is a sui generis. And it says it can subpoena anyone and any document. And this is sui generis. What do you
[1:29:49] think about that? So once again, you're saying, what do you say?
[1:29:55] Honorable Rodriguez, let us be conservative for now. I don't know what I mean. It's very good
[1:30:00] discussion. Because now many lawyers are watching us. The people are watching us. We
[1:30:05] have to, therefore, be able to have a decision on this. Because, as I have said, there are
[1:30:12] no, there are now two contending schools of thought. The philosophy of the law. I was under
[1:30:19] Professor Espinosa in UP. And we discussed this. So, positivist and the spirit of the law
[1:30:27] under our rules. What do you think should be your answer?
[1:30:31] Actually, we have complied with the subpoena, Madam Chair. We have, in fact, submitted the
[1:30:39] documents, subject only to the conditions provided in the law. We have no intention to
[1:30:49] not comply with the directive of the committee, as in fact we did by submitting the documents.
[1:30:55] Our only request is that we examine the documents within the bounds provided by the National Internal
[1:31:02] Revenue Code. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:31:04] And that would mean, Madam Chair, that the Commissioner is saying that since, he has stated this earlier,
[1:31:12] that because it is not in aid of legislation, then that will not apply. Correct? In other words,
[1:31:21] you're saying that even executive hearing does not apply. Because this is not in aid of legislation.
[1:31:27] It's not a hearing. As I have said, Madam Chair, when we submitted the documents, our premise is that,
[1:31:37] this proceeding is also in aid of legislation. Because whatever may be discussed here could be the basis of a future amendment of a law.
[1:31:48] Like, for example, as I said, the bank secrecy law or probably the tax code itself. But if the committee itself says that this is not in aid of legislation, then we will have to abide by that.
[1:32:00] You are a very good lawyer from San Beda. That is why we should, I would support now that we lay on the table, so that all of us will study.
[1:32:11] Now let's rule on the motion.
[1:32:13] Because we have to study now.
[1:32:15] There is a motion to lay on the table.
[1:32:18] Madam Chair, before that...
[1:32:19] The same has been seconded.
[1:32:21] Before that, Madam Chair, just one question for the Honorable Commissioner.
[1:32:25] Please proceed.
[1:32:27] Doon po sa natanggap nyong Sabina, nakalagay ho ba doon na ang pupuntahan nyong hearing is in aid of legislation?
[1:32:36] O alam nyo po na ito ay impeachment? This is an impeachment proceedings?
[1:32:41] Yes, alam po namin na ito ay impeachment proceedings.
[1:32:44] And yet, you still produce?
[1:32:46] Yes, opo.
[1:32:47] Because you are compelled to do that?
[1:32:49] To produce?
[1:32:50] Sapagkat meron pong direktiba ang committee na isabit namin ang mga dokumento at sa paniniwala namin nung isinabit namin ang mga dokumentong yun ay kung anuman ang mapagpapaus-papag-uusapan dito ay pupwedeng maging basis ng future legislation.
[1:33:06] Kung kaya't ang tingin po namin nung isinabit namin ang mga dokumento, bagamat ang pangunahing layunin ng committee ito ngayon sa proceedings na ito ay i-determine kung may probable cause against the Vice President to go to an impeachment trial, tinitinginan po ramin rin po namin na ang proceedings po na ito ay in aid of legislation.
[1:33:25] Pero yung paniniwala nyo in aid of legislation?
[1:33:30] Opo yun.
[1:33:31] Pero hindi malinaw po na this is not in aid of legislation because this is an impeachment proceedings, di ho ba?
[1:33:39] And you produce the document because you were ordered via subpina?
[1:33:45] Produce the documents because we were served the subpina and we believe that the submission is one of the exceptions provided by law.
[1:33:55] Kasi yung paniniwala nyo in aid of legislation?
[1:33:59] Opo yun.
[1:34:00] Yes po madam chair.
[1:34:01] Pero maling paniniwala po yun because this is clearly not in aid of legislation. Impeachment po ito, di ho ba? Impeachment proceedings.
[1:34:10] In any case madam chair, I know that there is this motion to lay on the table but let me just state for the record.
[1:34:16] Yes.
[1:34:17] I take the stronger legal position that Congress in its impeachment capacity can compel production of ITRs of the impeach official.
[1:34:27] The constitutional accountability imperative and the doctrine of constitutional supremacy over ordinary statutes support this view.
[1:34:39] The NIRC's confidentiality provisions do not immunize a public official from disclosure in a constitutionally mandated accountability proceeding.
[1:34:52] Yun po ang pagkakaiba.
[1:34:53] This is constitutionally mandated accountability proceedings.
[1:34:58] Special po ito.
[1:34:59] Sui generis po ito.
[1:35:01] So, hindi ho pwedeng ma-immunize ang isang impeachment official dahil lamang merong ganyang confidentiality provision in a statute.
[1:35:11] Constitution prevails over an ordinary statute.
[1:35:17] That's my position.
[1:35:19] Thank you madam chair.
[1:35:20] The committee notes all your important positions and opinions.
[1:35:25] I just wish to remind all the members that let us maintain the caution that we have started since day one of our proceeding.
[1:35:34] We owe that to the sovereign Filipino people to make sure that we move forward in this impeachment proceeding and we will not be a subject matter of another petition before the Supreme Court.
[1:35:49] With that, let us rule on the motion.
[1:35:52] There is a motion to lay on the table.
[1:35:55] The opening of the box.
[1:35:57] The same has been seconded.
[1:35:59] Is there any objection hearing?
[1:36:01] Are you objecting honorable dilemma?
[1:36:04] Yes, because of that's a position that I laid down.
[1:36:07] The latest position that I laid down.
[1:36:09] An objection has been registered to the motion to lay on the table.
[1:36:18] The opening of the box.
[1:36:20] Let us now divide the house.
[1:36:23] Those who are in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand.
[1:36:53] Thank you.
[1:36:54] You may put down your hands.
[1:36:55] Those who are not in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand.
[1:36:59] Thank you.
[1:37:09] Comsec, please submit the result of vote.
[1:37:12] Those who abstain, please raise your right hand.
[1:37:21] No one abstains.
[1:37:22] With 21 votes in the affirmative, 4 votes in the negative, and zero abstention.
[1:37:34] The motion to lay on the table the issue of opening the box is hereby granted.
[1:37:41] Madam Chair.
[1:37:43] Madam Chair.
[1:37:44] Madam Chair.
[1:37:45] The Honorable Adjong and then the Honorable Sendanya.
[1:37:47] Yeah, Madam Chair.
[1:37:49] I hope we are in understanding in agreement that we will not send back this box to BIR.
[1:37:57] Tama po ba?
[1:37:58] I don't need to make a motion on that.
[1:38:00] Commissioner, I hope you defer to the committee on its position not to return the box.
[1:38:08] We will keep the box although the same is sealed.
[1:38:10] Yes, Madam Chair.
[1:38:11] We defer to the committee, to the decision.
[1:38:13] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:38:14] Madam on a related point, Madam Chair.
[1:38:16] Honorable Sendanya.
[1:38:17] Perhaps for, to uphold the integrity of the decision of the committee to lay on the table,
[1:38:24] the decision to open the box.
[1:38:26] May we request the good commissioner of the BIR, the officers of the BIR, to kindly sign
[1:38:33] the taped part of the box to ensure the integrity of its seal.
[1:38:38] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:38:40] The commissioner of the BIR is so requested to please affix your signature on the seal of this box,
[1:38:54] so as to make sure that no one will open this.
[1:38:57] Madam Chair.
[1:38:59] May we provide Commissioner Mendoza with a pentel pen or a sign pen?
[1:39:04] Madam Chair.
[1:39:09] Madam Chair, clarificatory question.
[1:39:19] Honorable Pinio.
[1:39:20] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:39:22] Madam Chair.
[1:39:23] I just want to clarify the meaning of the vote that was just made.
[1:39:48] That was merely to defer.
[1:39:51] Okay.
[1:39:52] So by laying on the table.
[1:39:54] In proper time, we will resolve.
[1:39:56] So yung laying of the table, ibig sabihin po, is just to defer.
[1:40:00] To defer.
[1:40:01] Kaya po, hindi natin isinosoli kung hindi pag-aaralan pa kung pwedeng buksan o hindi ng
[1:40:07] committee.
[1:40:08] So yun lang po, ang gusto natin ilinaw at malinaw na...
[1:40:12] I think you should sign on all sides.
[1:40:16] Maaari pa itong buksan. Thank you.
[1:40:18] The committee notes the manifestation of the Honorable Pinio.
[1:40:24] We will soon hear the most favorite motion.
[1:40:32] Madam Chair, before that, may I make a manifestation?
[1:40:40] Madam Chair.
[1:40:52] The Honorable Keith Flores is recognized.
[1:40:54] Just for the record, before you proceed.
[1:40:58] For the record, the BAR Commissioner Attorney Charlie Mendoza affixed his signature on the
[1:41:05] four sides of this boxes to preserve the confidentiality of the contents of the same.
[1:41:12] That is for the record.
[1:41:15] The Honorable Flores.
[1:41:17] Madam Chair, before we join Madam Chair, I would just like to move that we issue a subpoena ad
[1:41:22] testificandum and subpoena de Sistekom for the NBI to present the results of the investigation
[1:41:29] on the threats.
[1:41:30] Madam Chair.
[1:41:31] There is a motion to issue subpoena to the National Bureau of Investigation with regards to the allegations
[1:41:37] of threat committed by the Respondent Vice President.
[1:41:42] Do I hear a second?
[1:41:43] The same has been seconded.
[1:41:45] Is there any objection?
[1:41:46] Hearing none, the motion is granted.
[1:41:50] The committee is directed to issue the necessary subpoena du Sistekom and subpoena ad testificandum
[1:41:57] to the National Bureau of Investigation.
[1:42:00] May I hear the necessary motion?
[1:42:02] Madam Chair, may I make a brief manifestation?
[1:42:06] Madam Chair.
[1:42:10] Honorable DS, Paolo Ortega.
[1:42:13] Madam Chair, to add lang to the manifestation of the Honorable Keith Flores, may we include the
[1:42:20] preserved and authenticated videos, digital forensic request form, preservation request to meta,
[1:42:30] email from Facebook, metadata November 28, 2024, forensic preservation and examination report,
[1:42:38] verified hash value logs, official transcript of the video recordings, and affidavit of authentication
[1:42:47] of digital evidence and all related technical metadata and chain of custody records generated during
[1:42:54] the forensic examination of the NBI.
[1:42:56] There is a motion to add digital and documentary records mentioned by the Movant.
[1:43:05] Is there a second?
[1:43:06] The same has been seconded.
[1:43:08] Is there any objection?
[1:43:10] Hearing none, the motion is granted.
[1:43:12] The Honorable Elago?
[1:43:14] Yes, Madam Chair.
[1:43:15] Nais ko lamang mailahad at madiinmuli sa ating record na sa kabila ng paulit-ulit
[1:43:21] na pagtawag sa respondent na si Vice President Sara Duterte.
[1:43:25] Sa bawat pagkakataon, sa hearing ngayong araw, hindi na naman dumalo si Vice President
[1:43:30] Sara Duterte sa pagdinig na ito.
[1:43:32] Isang mahalagang pagkakataon sana upang personal na matugunan ang mga seryosong isyong
[1:43:37] kinakaharap niya, lalo na sa usapin ng kanyang unexplained wealth bilang isang public official.
[1:43:43] Narinig natin mula sa ombudsman, nakapansin-pansin na mula 2019 hanggang 2024 ay wala siyang
[1:43:50] nadeklarang cash on hand o in-bank deposits sa kanyang sal-in.
[1:43:54] Kasabay nito, nakumpirma din ng AMLC na may mga covered at suspicious transaction records
[1:44:01] na nakalink sa Vice President at sa kanyang asawa.
[1:44:05] At ang mga ito ay may tinatawag na red flag indicators.
[1:44:10] Hindi po maliit ang bilang dahil umaabot ito sa mahigit 630 covered transactions
[1:44:16] at 33 suspicious transactions na may buong halaga na lampa 6 billion pesos.
[1:44:22] Dahil po dito, hindi may iwasang mapansin ang malinaw na malaking agwat
[1:44:26] at pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng laki ng mga financial transactions at ng naideklaran niyang yaman sa sal-in.
[1:44:33] Nakumpirma rin ho ng AMLC na may mga suspicious transactions na umaabot sa milyong-milyong piso.
[1:44:40] Samantala, sangayon din sa affidavit ni dating Senador Antonio Trillanes
[1:44:45] na may mga umano'y payout na umaabot sa higit 181 million pesos na natanggap ang VP at ilang miyembro ng kanyang pamilya.
[1:44:53] Mahalaga rin tandaan na nakumpirma ng AMLC ang 18 instances ng movements of funds
[1:45:00] na may magkakaparehong halaga at petsa na tumutugma sa pattern na nailatag sa nasabing affidavit.
[1:45:07] Madam Chair, kapag pinagsama-sama ang mga impormasyong ito,
[1:45:11] malinaw na may mga seryosong tanong na kailangang sagutin hinggil sa kanyang sal-in at sa posibleng pagkakaroon
[1:45:18] ng unexplained wealth ng isang mataas na opisyal ng bansa na si VP Sara Duterte.
[1:45:23] Sa maraming pagkakataon muli, nabigyan ang VP ng espasyo at oras para mapabulaanan ang mga aligasyon sa kanya
[1:45:31] at maipaliwanag ang kanyang panig pero hindi na naman siya umatend muli sa hiling na ito.
[1:45:36] Yun lamang, Madam Chairperson.
[1:45:38] For the last time, before we suspend, we direct the COMSEC to call again the Vice President.
[1:45:43] COMSEC?
[1:45:45] For the last time, may we be informed if the respondent, Vice President Sara C. Duterte is present in this meeting today,
[1:45:55] in this hearing today, the respondent is not present.
[1:46:00] Let it be placed on record that COMSEC called again the Vice President
[1:46:04] that is for the purpose of giving her the opportunity to present her evidence, including counter evidence,
[1:46:10] including clarificatory questions to our last resource person for today, the BIR Commissioner Attorney Charlie Mendoza.
[1:46:18] That is for the record.
[1:46:19] Now the necessary motion.
[1:46:21] Madam Chair, may I move that we suspend the hearing?
[1:46:23] There is a motion to suspend.
[1:46:24] Seconded.
[1:46:25] The same has been seconded.
[1:46:26] Is there any objection?
[1:46:27] Hearing none.
[1:46:28] Hearing none.
Transcribe Any Video or Podcast — Free
Paste a URL and get a full AI-powered transcript in minutes. Try ScribeHawk →