House prosecution team holds press briefing on impeachment trial updates — July 20

[0:32] Today of our House Prosecution Panel spokesperson with us today are none other than Representative Zia Alonto Adyong of the 1st District of Lanao del Sur and also Attorney Benjamin J. Tolosa Jr. who is also acting as one of the councils for the prosecution. [0:55] To start this press briefing, let's hear you first from Representative Adyong. [0:59] Thank you very much, Koy Roy. Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi ta'ala hiwabarakatuh. [1:06] Maayong muntag, kanatantanan, magandang umaga po. [1:12] Just a quick recap of what happened in the past two weeks. [1:17] The House Prosecution Panel was able to again establish the facts based on the testimonies presented by Mr. Kalilong and Lotok. [1:27] On the part of Mr. Kalilong, the House Prosecution Panel was able to establish again the facts surrounding the digital evidence na prinisinta po sa korte. [1:40] Ito po yung nakita natin, nagbanta ang vice-presidente, laban kay presidente, sa unang ginang, at sa former speaker of the House of Representatives. [1:49] Tinahi po ito when Attorney Lotok, again, sufficiently corroborated the testimony of Mr. Kalilong with prima facie evidence to proceed with the filing of the complaint for preliminary investigation with a reasonable certainty of conviction. [2:05] Again, both testimonies were not refuted. [2:10] So, nandito na po tayo sa punto wherein we are approaching the end of Article 4. [2:15] Our last witness that we will present tomorrow will be Director Matibag. [2:21] Para po masagot at matahi yung mga hanging questions na tinanong po in the previous two weeks, last week, kay Mr. Lotok. [2:32] So, ito po yung magiging mag-a-finale nitong Article 4, ang presentasyon ng House Prosecution Panel kay Director Matibag [2:40] at ang pagbibigay po niya ng information, facts, surrounding the preliminary investigation conducted by the NBI. [2:51] So, inaasaan po natin bukas ay maririnig po natin ang testimonya ni NBI Director Matibag. [2:59] Jay? [3:00] Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. [3:04] So, as you would recall also, during the last hearing last week, last Wednesday, the parties engaged in oral arguments to advance their respective positions [3:16] with respect to the prosecution's request for the issuance of subpoena to compel the presentation or the submission of the various financial documents [3:30] of the vice president and her husband, as well as their financial interests. [3:35] This includes their BIR filings, the AMLOC records, and bank records. [3:41] So, as you know, during last week's hearing, the parties, after they presented their oral arguments and their rebuttals, [3:51] the impeachment court decided to continue the oral arguments today to allow the senator judges [3:59] to ask questions to either of the parties. [4:06] With respect to this matter, we just want to emphasize the importance of today's proceedings. [4:12] Una-una ho, gusto namin klaruhin, ang hinihingi ho namin dito ay presentasyon pa lang ho nitong mga official records na to. [4:22] So, wala pa pong mangyayaring paghahatol dito, at hindi pa rin ho ito pagtanggap ng ebidensya. [4:32] Ito pa lang ho ay para mabigyan ng pagkakataon na mapresenta itong mga dokumento na to at masuri ng magkabilang panig. [4:42] As we've emphasized before, these financial documents are very important, particularly with respect to the Articles of Impeachment on an Explained Wealth, or the Article 2. [4:55] Dahil sa pamamagitan ng mga dokumentong ito, dito ho natin makikita yung complete financial standing ng vice-presidente. [5:05] Again, we have to emphasize, ang hinihingi ho namin dito ay subpina. Ano ho ang ibig sabihin ng subpina? [5:13] In particular, subpina du Cestecom. Ito ho ay order issued by the impeachment court to compel these different government agencies as well as the banks to submit these very important financial records. [5:27] Tulad ho ng nasabi namin dati, napakahalaga ho na maikumpara natin ang buong yaman na diniklara ng vice-presidente sa kanyang SAL-IN, or the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, [5:44] at ikumpara ito doon sa kanyang mga BIR tax filings. Ano ho ito? Ito ho yung taon-taon na sinasubmit ng lahat ng tao na nagtatrabaho may lawful income para sabihin for any particular year, ito yung kabuoang kita ng taong ito. [6:03] So in other words, sa kanila ho ito nang galing, these are sworn documents sila ho ang nagsubmit ng mga dokumento na ito. [6:11] At pagkatapos ho, with respect to the AMLOC records, we would recall that these matters were actually presented already by the Executive Director of the AMLOC, [6:23] which showed that the Vice President had financial transactions amounting to around 6.7 billion pesos. [6:30] Ngayon, itatahi din ho ito doon sa mga bank records para makita naman magkano talaga ang linalaman ng mga banko ng vice-presidente. [6:40] So dyan ho, kaya ganyan ho na napakahalaga ng mga dokumento na ito para maikumpara natin ano ang diniklarang yaman at ano ang totoong yaman at ano din ang legal nakita. [6:54] Dahil ang posisyon ho ng prosecution, as stated in the Articles of Impeachment, napakalayo ho ng disparity ng diniklar na yaman at ano ang totoong yaman. [7:05] All right, with that, we are ready to accept your questions. [7:13] Haji? [7:15] Good morning po. [7:17] May mga nag-rally po sa labas. [7:20] I don't know kung nakita po ninyo. [7:21] I think yung bantay senado po yata yun and other groups, [7:26] they're calling on the senators na payagan na po yung pagpapasabina doon sa tax and bank records. [7:32] Sabi po nila, pag hindi po nagawa yun, mawawalan daw po ng saisay yung kabuuan pagliliti. [7:39] So parang ang call po nila is kalampagin yung mga senators, sulatan, magpost sa social media, etc. [7:45] But do you share the same sentiment with the groups na yun nga po, mawawalan daw po ng saisay? [7:53] Okay, kapag hindi po hinayaan na mabuksan yung mga records po na ito, [7:58] syempre in pursuit of accountability. [8:03] Well, sa una, well, I think the Filipino people understand what is at stake here [8:08] dito sa usaping na impeachment trial. [8:12] Ang at stake po dito ay yung ating saligang batas talaga. [8:15] At yung pananagutan kung saan binigyan ng kapangyarihan ng saligang batas, [8:19] ang Senado, katangitanging kapangyarihan, exclusive power to do, try and decide impeachment complaint. [8:29] Ang sinasabi po ng House Prosecution Panel, [8:32] as sufficiently and aptly discussed by Congressman Shell Diokno in his oral argument, [8:41] dapat po ang Senado hindi i-clip ang itong kapangyarihan na ito. [8:45] Dapat hindi i-restrict ang Senado acting as impeachment court para ma-access niya [8:51] yung dapat na mga material na ebidensya na magiging importante or indispensable [8:58] para ito po mag-arrive into a fair, impartial and sound judgment [9:06] based on the evidence that they have to obtain. [9:09] Yung sinabi po ni Attorney Jay kanina, ito po ay pagbibigay access para po yung supina na po yun [9:18] makuha po itong mga material na ito na very important for the court to have an accurate basis for them [9:29] or reference for them to arrive into a conclusion, a sound and impartial conclusion. [9:36] Kaya nga po kami sa House Prosecution Panel nakikita natin yung ano yung nagiging reaksyon ng taong bayan [9:44] dahil alam nila, naiintindihan nila na ito lang yung paraan kung paano ang Senado ay mabigyang, [9:52] yung kanilang magiging patsusuri, it will lead also to them not only resolving the case [10:00] but also to exercise yung kanilang katangi-tangi kapangyarihan. [10:08] The truth shall set us free. [10:10] And I'm not mentioning this based solely on religious tone. [10:14] Ito, naiintindihan po ito ng ating taong bayan. [10:17] And if we go back, go back to our experience in the past, yung nangyari po dun sa kay Estrada impeachment trial, [10:27] yung taong bayan dahil it was not, the envelope was, you know, it was not open, [10:36] the people felt betrayed because of the blocking of the opening of the second envelope. [10:42] And yun po yung nakikita po natin kung saan po sila ang ating taong bayan nang gagaling. [10:53] So tayo naman po, dahil ni-request naman po natin itong mga documents na ito, [11:01] ay naiintindihan po natin ang ating taong bayan, yung clamor nila, yung demand nila for accountability, [11:08] yung demand nila for the Senate acting as impeachment court to exercise that extraordinary power [11:17] and not to allow the fundamental law of the land be subservient to ordinary laws. [11:25] Kasi ang nagsasabi naman po dito ang ating saligang batas na ang kapangyarihan ng Senado. [11:31] So kung ano po yung mga batas na na-mention po in the oral argument by the defense, [11:37] these should not be reasons to curtail the right of the Senate acting as impeachment court [11:45] because the basis for them to exercise this power is granted to them by the fundamental law of the land [11:51] which is the 1987 Philippine Constitution. [11:54] May also add, naririnig namin at sumasang-ayon kami sa panawagan at paniniwala ng ating mga kababayan [12:05] na napakahalaga na makita itong mga dokumento na ito para makita natin ang kabuan na yaman ng vicepresidente [12:13] at ito ang paraan para makita natin yung katotohanan, paukol sa bagay na ito dito sa unexplained wealth. [12:23] At alalahanin din natin, bukod sa napaka-importanting rason na kailangan ito para makita ang buong katotohanan, [12:31] Our request is based on strong legal grounds, as articulated by Kongshel Jokno during the oral arguments. [12:39] Matibay ang basihan namin dito. [12:41] It's grounded in the Constitution, the special laws governing these specific financial documents. [12:49] It's based on jurisprudence and impeachment president, tulad dun sa nangyari, dun sa impeachment proceedings ng late Chief Justice Corona. [13:02] At malahog din siguro na I have to point out, again, dun sa proceedings before the House of Representatives, [13:13] Pinakita itong mga AMLOC records, which disclosed that the vice president and her husband had financial transactions amounting to 6.7 billion pesos. [13:28] I have to emphasize that, 6.7 billion pesos. [13:33] Ano ang naging tugon nila dito? [13:35] Ang naging explanation ng kampon ng vice presidente ay, these numbers were supposedly bloated. [13:43] Dahil ang sinasabi nila, pwede dito may pumasok, same na pera, lumabas ulit at pumasok na naman. [13:53] Kaya naka-reflect daw siya dito sa mga AMLOC reports na ito. [13:58] Pwede din ho daw na inter-bank transfers, meaning from one bank account, [14:02] ang vice presidente linipat lang sa kabilang bank account niya. [14:07] Let's remember, in the SALN, the total net worth that was declared was only 80 million. [14:15] If we're talking about 6.7 billion in financial transactions, [14:20] gano'ng kadaming beses ho yan papalabasin at papapasokin ng paulit-ulit. [14:25] Now, kung gano'n ho ang kanilang depensa, hindi ho ba makakatulong para sa lahat at para din sa kanila [14:34] na buksan itong mga bank records na ito para once and for all masettle, [14:40] magkano ba talagang linalaman ng mga bank accounts niya? [14:44] Lalo na kung ang sinasabi niya ay ganyan ang paliwanag na itong same amount na ito, [14:52] lumabas-pasok, naging bloated itong mga figures stated in the AMLOC reports. [15:00] So, makakatulong ho ito sa lahat para din ho sa kanila. [15:06] Kung yan ang posisyon nila, para mapatunayan na talagang inosente sila sa charges na ito. [15:11] Just to follow up lang po, nakikita niyo po ba na yung bigat na mayahalin tulad po siya [15:20] doon sa envelope during the Estrada trial, yung galit po nung publiko, the same. [15:27] Kung halimbawang hindi po, of course, hindi naman po ninyo pinapangunahan, [15:32] pero kung halimbawang hindi po mapagbigyan o mapasabi na yung tax at bank records po na ito, [15:37] mayahalin tulad po ba ninyo yung bigat doon sa envelope na hindi po nabuksan [15:41] nung Estrada trial. [15:46] Well, considering the gravity of what's at stake here, [15:51] we will understand that kind of sentiment. [15:54] Pero kami, we're hoping na hindi na ho tayo umabot doon. [15:59] Totala, napakaliwanag naman ng basihan kung bakit napatbuksan ito. [16:05] Ito ay nakapaloob sa Constitution. [16:07] Pati ho, itong mga special laws governing these financial transactions, [16:13] pinapayagan din ho ang disclosure niyan. [16:17] Jurisprudence supports it. [16:18] And as I've stated, pati ho doon sa nakaraan na impeachment proceedings, [16:22] pinayagan ho ito. [16:23] So nananalig ho kami na hindi na ho tayo umabot sa ganung punto. [16:28] At our request will be granted based on those strong legal bases. [16:34] Ang gusto lang naman ng taong bayan, very simple, katotohanan. [16:39] I think they deserve that, na may bigay na natin sa kanila ang katotohanan. [16:46] Kasi unang-una, pag yung, nangyari kasi, [16:51] you try to reference that with the Estrada impeachment court, [16:57] feeling nila na doble yung betrayal sa kanila. [17:01] I think the people now realize that, [17:06] na ang deserve lang talaga nilang malaman. [17:10] Not necessarily to convict the respondent, [17:14] but to know the truth. [17:15] Even if you try to analyze it on both ways, [17:20] may karapatan din. [17:22] Even yung mga supporters po ng respondent, Vice President Duterte, [17:27] may karapatan din po sila malaman. [17:29] Kung yung sinusuportahan ba nila ay totoo na wala siyang hinahide o tinatago na yaman. [17:39] So very simple po ang ating panawagan ng ating taong bayan. [17:44] Katotohanan at huwag supilin ang katotohanan. [17:48] Last na lang po talaga. [17:49] Over the weekend, may mga sinasabi po si Senator Judge Alan Peter Cayetano [17:56] with regards to NBI Director Melvin Matibag. [18:00] Yung latest nga po, tinawag pa niya, Minion, etc. [18:03] Do you expect po na pagsalang po niya bukas, [18:07] hindi po ba mape-personal na atake? [18:11] I mean, hindi po ba mape-personal si NBI Director Matibag [18:15] instead of focusing on the, kung ano po yung kanyang itetestify on the grave threats. [18:22] Thank you po. [18:25] What we would expect is Director Matibag to respond to the question by both panels. [18:33] We would expect him to inform the court or appraise the court [18:40] based on the knowledge that he has surrounding the preliminary investigation. [18:47] So yun po yung in-expect natin. [18:49] In fact, hindi lang ho in-expect, yun po yung ipapakita natin sa taong bayan [18:53] at ipapresenta sa korte. [18:56] Kung ano man po yung mga other issues, [18:59] I don't think it should that the House Prosecution Panel also should intervene [19:04] in matters that are internal between and among individuals. [19:08] Yes, stated by Kong Adjong, [19:15] we will leave it to the presiding officer to determine [19:18] what questions that may be posed by the senator judges [19:23] will be considered to be appropriate and relevant to the matter at hand. [19:29] But again, insofar as we're concerned for the prosecution, [19:32] we remain focused on making sure that NBI Director Matibag [19:39] will be able to share all material facts [19:46] with respect to the topic at hand, [19:50] which is in dun sa grave threat. [19:52] So he will be sharing the important investigation [19:55] conducted by the NBI in relation to this matter. [19:57] Hello po, Eden Santos, NET25. [20:06] Follow-up din po dun sa kay Director Matibag. [20:10] Muli po kasing kumakalat ngayon sa SOC, [20:12] medyo audio-convo niya dun sa isang media personality [20:17] na pinagmumurat po niya at pinagbantaan na papatayin. [20:23] Hindi po ba ito makaka-apekto dun sa kanyang pagtistigo, [20:28] lalo kung pwedeng basagin yung kanyang credibility? [20:33] Una, hindi ko po narinig itong video na ito. [20:36] Pangalawas, hindi po kami nagsasalita on behalf of for Attorney Matibag. [20:43] Kung meron po siyang personal na dealing with any of the media personality [20:48] that is business, [20:49] I'm sure Attorney Matibag, Director Matibag, has a reason. [20:57] Baka meron siyang rason kung bakit nagawa niya. [21:00] And again, ang focus namin is how to present him to the impeachment court [21:04] base po sa kanyang knowledge, kaalaman doon sa preliminary investigation. [21:11] Maliban lang po doon, [21:13] hindi na ho namin, [21:14] hindi na kami magdodwell doon sa mga issues [21:17] na hinaharap po ni Director Matibag. [21:23] At the end of the day, importante ho dito, [21:27] tignan natin itong mga peripheral issues na ito. [21:30] May kinalaman ba siya sa magiging paksa ng kanyang testimonya? [21:34] Which is, ano ang investigasyon na ginawa ng NBI [21:38] paukol dun sa mga pag-amin ng Vice Presidente [21:43] na meron siyang naging kasunduan sa isang mamamatay tao [21:47] na patay ng Presidente? [21:48] Now, kung yung mga issues na yan, [21:51] although we don't have personal knowledge about them, [21:54] wala akong kinalaman yan, [21:55] hindi namin nakikita kung paano ito makaka-apekto sa kanyang testimonya. [22:01] Kasi po yung defense, [22:02] posibleng magiging isang way yan para basagin [22:06] or tibagin yung credibility ni Director Matibag. [22:11] And that is their prerogative. [22:12] They can try to do that. [22:13] But at the end of the day, [22:16] ang titignan natin at susurihin natin mabuti dito, [22:19] ano yung ebidensya na ilalatag niya dito? [22:23] All other matters are just noise [22:25] if they have nothing to do with respect to the investigation that he conducted. [22:29] So yun ho ang surihin natin, [22:31] yung ebidensya ang ilalapag niya kapag siya ay nagtestigo bukas. [22:35] Ang magiging participation lang po ni NBI Director [22:38] is yung capacity niya o yung authority niya [22:41] biglang na head of the NBI as an agency [22:45] na sila po yung nag-imbestiga [22:46] kay vice-presidente. [22:49] Patungkol doon sa pagbabanta niya [22:51] sa presidente, sa unang ginang, [22:54] at sa dating former speaker. [22:57] Hindi ho magtatanong ang House Prosecution Panel [23:02] o iprepresenta si Director Matibag [23:04] base po doon sa mga other na engagement niya [23:08] with other individuals. [23:11] Kung yun po yung gagawin, [23:14] sabi nga po ni Atty. J, [23:16] meron din namang strategy ang depensa. [23:19] Pero ako, naniniwala ko [23:21] na ang impeachment court, [23:23] dahil meron silang Senate rules on impeachment, [23:25] alam po ng mga nakaupong huwis [23:27] kung ano yung mga paglatag ng tanong, [23:29] ano yung mga relevant na tanong, [23:32] ano yung mga hindi relevant na tanong. [23:35] Alam naman po natin, [23:37] based on the two weeks na trial, [23:41] meron mga katanungan na hindi relevant [23:45] at sinasabi naman po ng presiding officer [23:47] na hindi ito ang cope doon sa pinag-uusapan [23:50] sa impeachment trial under sa Article 4. [23:56] So kung ano po yung magiging katanungan nila, [23:58] alam naman ng mga huwis na hindi naman talaga [24:00] siya konektado doon sa pag-testify doon [24:02] sa investigation na nagbantaang vice-presidente, [24:05] mukhang kami, [24:07] naniniwala kami ng impeachment court [24:09] at ang presiding officer, [24:11] dahil may Senate rules on impeachment, [24:13] ay alam po nila kung ano yung [24:14] i-call out ng relevant at irrelevant. [24:16] Very clear po, [24:17] irrelevant po kung ano man yung [24:18] i-coconnect po nila outside [24:19] of the discussion under Article 4. [24:23] Are we expecting po na yung mga prosecutors natin, [24:27] prosecutor natin ay tatayo din sa impeachment trial [24:33] or yung mga private prosecutors na po talaga? [24:38] Actually, ilang beses na din natin nakita, [24:40] naging aktibo sa paglilitis nito, [24:43] mga public prosecutors. [24:45] Magmula pa lang sa unang araw, [24:47] magmula doon sa opening statement [24:49] ni Chair Jinky Luistro [24:52] sa opening statement din [24:54] for threats [24:55] ni Kong Noy Defensor, [24:57] nakita din natin, [24:58] nag-engage sa oral arguments, [25:01] si Congressman Shelljok, [25:03] so you can see [25:05] that they're very active in these proceedings. [25:07] At yes, [25:09] sa mga susunod na linggo, [25:11] bukod dyan, [25:12] magpipresenta din sila [25:13] ng mga testigo [25:15] para sa prosecution. [25:18] Alright. [25:19] Thank you. [25:20] Then, now, [25:21] Ann, your turn. [25:22] Sir, good morning. [25:23] Ann Soberano po of Bombo Radio. [25:25] Sir, kung mapagbigyan po [25:26] nung inyong kahilingan [25:28] na isubpina po itong bank records, [25:31] can the Vice President [25:32] still challenge the subpoenas [25:34] if they are issued? [25:36] Turn it alone. [25:38] Well, this is a compulsory process [25:41] that will be issued [25:42] by the impeachment court. [25:44] And, [25:45] together with such a subpoena power, [25:48] the impeachment court [25:49] has also the authority [25:51] and the power [25:51] to enforce them. [25:53] Whoever [25:53] fails [25:57] or refuses [25:59] to comply [26:00] with the subpoena, [26:01] well, [26:02] they will have to face [26:03] the consequences [26:04] that come with it. [26:05] Merong contempt power [26:06] ang impeachment court [26:08] para pilitin ho yan. [26:09] Now, [26:10] kung anong mang iba pang [26:11] legal remedies [26:13] that she would want [26:14] to try to avail off, [26:16] nasa kanya ho yan. [26:17] But, [26:18] ang importante dito, [26:19] kapag in-issue [26:20] ang impeachment court, [26:20] kailangan ho yung sundan. [26:25] Tulad ho [26:26] ng kahit [26:27] sinong tao. [26:28] Hindi ho malaga [26:29] yung personalidad, [26:30] mahalaga yung [26:31] proseso [26:31] at ang batas. [26:33] At sinasabi niyan, [26:34] kailangan sundan [26:35] kapag na-issue [26:36] anong sabpina. [26:38] Sir, [26:38] could this rule, [26:39] could the ruling [26:40] be appealed [26:41] or reconsidered? [26:42] They could ask [26:45] for reconsideration [26:47] of the impeachment court, [26:49] but that's also [26:52] a matter that [26:53] will be resolved [26:54] by the same impeachment court. [26:55] But to clarify, [26:57] itong mga dokumento na to, [26:59] they are not [27:00] in the possession [27:01] of the vice president. [27:03] They are in the possession [27:04] of the AMLAC, [27:06] of the banks, [27:07] and the BIR. [27:08] So, [27:09] kapag ho ito [27:10] ay granted [27:11] itong request [27:12] for sabpina, [27:13] ang susunod ho nito [27:14] hindi [27:14] ang vice president. [27:16] Itong mga [27:17] institutions na ito [27:19] ang magsusumite [27:20] ng mga dokumento na to. [27:22] Last na po [27:23] on my part. [27:23] Atatagdag ko lang, [27:24] kailangan natin [27:24] intindihin sa ating [27:26] taong bayan [27:26] na ang vice president [27:27] ay hindi [27:28] private individual. [27:30] Ito po [27:31] ay mga public [27:31] records [27:32] na inaasahan po [27:34] bilang isang [27:35] public official [27:36] ay ibigay niya [27:37] sa mga [27:39] ahensyang [27:39] nangangasiwa dito. [27:41] So, [27:42] kung [27:42] pinag-uusapan po [27:44] natin dito [27:45] ay private individual, [27:46] possibly po, [27:47] ito si attorney J, [27:48] possibly po din [27:49] na magkaroon [27:50] ng certain [27:51] degree of [27:52] restriction [27:53] or confidentiality. [27:55] Pero pinag-uusapan po [27:56] natin dito [27:57] yung kanyang [27:58] fitness [27:58] sa pagiging [28:00] vice presidente. [28:03] Kung ang kanyang [28:06] nireflect [28:07] doon sa [28:07] salen niya [28:08] ay tugma ba [28:09] doon sa kanyang [28:10] binabayarang buwis [28:11] kada taon. [28:13] So, again, [28:14] it is imperative [28:15] for the vice president [28:17] knowing that she is [28:18] the second highest [28:19] official in the land [28:20] and a public officer [28:21] at that [28:22] occupies a public [28:23] office [28:24] which certainly [28:25] according to [28:26] the constitution [28:26] and many other laws [28:28] should be, [28:29] again, [28:29] dahil pinag-uusapan [28:30] natin dito, [28:31] impeachment trial, [28:32] should be, [28:33] again, [28:33] resolved by the [28:34] impeachment court [28:35] as an institution [28:37] that has the [28:38] exclusive power [28:38] to request [28:39] for the [28:40] records [28:41] through a [28:41] subpina. [28:42] So, [28:43] yun lang po [28:43] yung tatandaan [28:44] natin [28:44] at alam po [28:44] ng taong [28:45] bayan yun [28:45] na hindi po [28:46] siya individual [28:47] na private [28:48] individual. [28:49] Siya po [28:49] ay isang [28:50] public officer. [28:51] Sir, [28:53] thank you. [28:55] Hi Kong, [28:56] Hi Kong, [28:56] attorney, [28:56] good morning po. [28:58] Yung regarding po [28:59] ulit sa request [29:00] nating, [29:00] BIR and bank records, [29:02] I understand magagamit [29:03] po ito para sa [29:04] unexplained wealth, [29:05] tama po ba? [29:06] Can we say that [29:07] this is the strongest [29:08] evidence na meron tayo [29:10] for unexplained wealth [29:11] and if ever man po [29:12] na hindi payagan, [29:14] hihina po ba [29:15] yung mga ebidensya [29:16] natin? [29:17] Well, [29:18] hindi naman [29:18] naka base [29:19] sa iisa [29:20] o dalawang [29:21] ebidensya lang, [29:22] yung ating articles [29:23] of impeachment. [29:23] We have other [29:26] documentary [29:27] and testimonial [29:28] evidence. [29:29] Gayun pa man, [29:30] ang aim natin [29:31] dito [29:31] ay makita [29:34] yung buong [29:34] katotohanan. [29:36] So regardless, [29:37] if we have [29:38] other evidence [29:39] that could support [29:40] articles of impeachment, [29:42] napakahalaga pa rin [29:44] na makita [29:45] natin [29:46] itong mga [29:46] ebidensya nito. [29:48] In fact, [29:49] regardless, [29:49] if you're [29:50] pro [29:51] or [29:51] anti, [29:53] no, [29:53] the [29:55] respondent, [29:55] regardless of [29:56] your [29:57] leanings [29:57] at this [29:58] point, [29:58] napakahalaga, [29:59] actually, [30:00] dapat lahat tayo, [30:01] hinihingi natin, [30:02] tignan natin [30:03] itong mga [30:03] dokumento na ito. [30:05] Dahil kung [30:05] naniniwala ka [30:06] na walang [30:09] paglabag [30:09] sa batas [30:10] na ginawa, [30:10] all the more [30:11] na dapat [30:12] gusto mo ding [30:12] makita ito. [30:14] Parang once and for all, [30:15] we could settle [30:16] that question. [30:17] Makikita natin, [30:18] wala talaga [30:19] itong mga [30:19] tinatagong yaman [30:20] na ito. [30:21] So, [30:21] it's for the [30:22] best interest [30:23] of everyone [30:24] involved, [30:24] the impeachment [30:25] court, [30:25] na maghahatol [30:27] dito sa [30:29] impeachment na ito, [30:30] pati ang taong [30:31] bayan na makita [30:32] natin pare-pareho [30:33] itong mga [30:33] napakalagang [30:34] mga ebidensya [30:35] na ito. [30:36] Very simple [30:37] lang, [30:38] papayagan ba [30:39] natin ang [30:40] impeachment [30:40] court na [30:41] maghahatol [30:41] basis [30:42] sa hindi [30:43] kompletong [30:44] dokumento [30:44] o ebidensya? [30:45] Di ba, [30:45] hindi naman natin [30:46] papayagan yun [30:46] ang taong bayan [30:47] ayong payagan [30:48] ng ganong [30:48] klaseng [30:49] hatol [30:49] na hindi [30:50] sapat [30:51] doon sa [30:51] naipresenta [30:52] na ebidensya? [30:53] Yun lang, [30:53] very simple [30:54] lang po yun. [30:55] Kailangan [30:55] mabigyan ng [30:56] pagkakataon [30:57] ang impeachment [30:58] court na [30:58] masuri [30:59] makita [31:00] ang lahat [31:01] ng ebidensya [31:02] ang kinakailangan [31:03] para po ang [31:03] hatol nila [31:04] ay kompleto [31:05] at hindi po [31:06] base lang [31:06] sa mga [31:07] presumption. [31:09] What if [31:09] meron din palang [31:10] ganitong [31:11] klaseng [31:11] dokumento [31:12] na hindi [31:12] natin [31:12] nakita? [31:13] What we do [31:13] not want [31:14] is to [31:14] curtail the [31:15] right of the [31:15] impeachment [31:16] court [31:16] and also [31:17] to probably [31:20] preclude them [31:20] from even [31:21] arriving into [31:22] a very [31:23] partial [31:23] fair [31:24] judgment. [31:25] Hindi lang [31:26] ito [31:27] in favor [31:28] of the [31:29] prosecution. [31:30] It can [31:30] also be [31:31] favor to [31:31] the defense. [31:33] It's not [31:34] even a [31:34] question of [31:34] culpability. [31:35] It's not [31:35] even a [31:36] question of [31:36] conviction. [31:37] It is a [31:38] question [31:38] whether the [31:38] people really [31:39] deserve to [31:40] know the [31:40] truth, [31:40] the whole [31:41] truth, [31:41] and [31:41] nothing but [31:42] the [31:42] truth. [31:42] So the [31:43] only way [31:44] for the [31:44] people to [31:44] know that [31:45] is for [31:46] the [31:46] court to [31:46] also have [31:47] access and [31:47] obtain [31:48] these [31:48] documents. [31:49] Important [31:49] for them [31:49] to arrive [31:50] in this [31:50] fair, [31:51] again, [31:52] fair, [31:53] partial [31:53] judgment. [31:59] That's [32:00] na lang po. [32:00] If [32:01] ever, [32:01] we don't [32:02] want to [32:02] preempt [32:02] yung magiging [32:03] decision [32:03] nila [32:03] lamamaya. [32:04] If [32:04] ever, [32:05] whatever [32:05] the [32:05] decision [32:06] of the [32:06] senator [32:07] judges, [32:08] paano [32:08] po tayo [32:09] magreact [32:09] if [32:09] ever [32:10] man [32:10] na [32:10] hindi [32:11] po [32:11] nila [32:11] payagan? [32:12] Pwede [32:13] po ba [32:13] nating [32:13] questionin [32:14] yun? [32:16] Or [32:16] kung [32:16] pwede [32:17] mang [32:18] payagan, [32:18] baka [32:18] maging [32:18] limitado [32:19] yung [32:19] access? [32:22] Well, [32:22] of course, [32:23] there are [32:24] legal [32:25] remedies [32:25] that will [32:26] be [32:26] available [32:26] to us. [32:27] Pero [32:27] as you've [32:28] mentioned, [32:29] ayaw namin [32:30] pangunahan [32:30] yan. [32:31] Dahil [32:31] para sa [32:31] amin, [32:32] we don't [32:32] see [32:32] any [32:33] reason [32:33] why [32:34] the [32:34] request [32:35] for [32:35] the [32:35] issuance [32:35] of [32:36] subpina [32:36] will [32:37] not [32:37] be [32:37] granted. [32:40] Narinig [32:40] natin [32:41] ang [32:41] mga [32:42] argumento [32:43] ng [32:43] magkabilang [32:43] panig [32:44] at [32:44] nananalig [32:46] ho [32:47] kami [32:47] na [32:47] pakikinggan [32:48] ng [32:49] impeachment [32:50] court [32:50] ang [32:51] haming [32:51] kahilingan [32:52] at [32:52] kahilingan [32:53] ng [32:53] ating [32:53] mga [32:53] kababayan [32:54] which [32:54] is [32:54] to [32:55] see [32:55] the [32:55] truth. [32:55] Sabi [32:56] nga [32:56] ni [32:57] Kong [32:57] Zia [32:57] this [32:58] is [32:58] not [32:59] in [32:59] favor [32:59] of [33:00] the [33:01] prosecution [33:01] this [33:02] is [33:03] in [33:03] favor [33:03] of [33:04] the [33:04] truth. [33:05] So [33:05] lahat [33:05] nang [33:06] gustong [33:06] makakita [33:07] ng [33:07] buong [33:08] katotohanan [33:09] paukol [33:10] sa [33:10] bagay [33:11] na [33:11] to [33:11] sa [33:11] yaman [33:12] ng [33:12] vice [33:12] presidente [33:13] iisa [33:14] lang [33:14] dapat [33:15] ang [33:15] gusto [33:15] natin [33:16] which [33:17] is [33:17] to [33:17] see [33:17] these [33:17] documents. [33:18] Okay. [33:22] Vel Custodio [33:23] po [33:23] from [33:23] PTV. [33:25] Sa [33:25] matatandaan [33:27] po na [33:27] nung [33:27] during [33:28] the [33:28] impeachment [33:29] of [33:30] Renato [33:31] Corona [33:31] noong [33:32] 2012, [33:32] yung [33:32] mga [33:33] ilang [33:33] senador [33:34] ay [33:34] bumoto [33:34] to [33:35] open [33:36] the [33:36] financial [33:37] records [33:38] ni [33:39] dating [33:39] chief [33:39] justice. [33:40] And [33:40] ilan [33:40] nga [33:41] po [33:41] sa [33:41] mga [33:41] senador [33:41] dito [33:42] si [33:42] the [33:43] senator [33:43] Alan [33:44] Peter [33:44] Cayetano [33:45] and [33:45] the [33:47] rest [33:47] of [33:47] the [33:47] senator [33:48] who [33:48] are [33:48] also [33:48] present [33:49] dito. [33:50] So [33:50] are [33:51] we [33:51] still [33:52] expecting [33:52] na [33:53] they [33:53] will [33:54] keep [33:54] their [33:54] track [33:55] records [33:56] despite [33:57] nga [33:58] po [33:58] nung [33:58] differences [34:00] in terms [34:00] of [34:01] political [34:01] side? [34:02] Well, [34:06] as [34:06] pointed [34:07] out [34:07] by [34:08] Kong [34:09] Sheldjok [34:09] during [34:09] the [34:09] oral [34:10] arguments, [34:11] in [34:12] the [34:12] previous [34:13] impeachment [34:14] proceedings [34:14] concerning [34:15] the [34:15] late [34:15] CJ [34:16] Corona, [34:18] the [34:18] presiding [34:18] officer, [34:19] Senator [34:19] Cheez [34:20] Escudero [34:20] and [34:21] Senator [34:22] Alan [34:22] Peter [34:22] Cayetano, [34:23] voted [34:24] in [34:25] favor [34:25] of [34:25] disclosure [34:26] of [34:27] these [34:27] financial [34:27] documents. [34:28] And [34:29] if I [34:30] remember [34:30] correctly, [34:31] we [34:32] heard [34:33] Senator [34:34] Cayetano [34:35] gave a [34:36] comment [34:37] saying, [34:38] so I [34:38] guess [34:38] you [34:38] already [34:39] know [34:39] how [34:40] he [34:40] will [34:41] rule [34:42] on [34:43] the [34:43] same [34:43] topic. [34:45] But [34:45] again, [34:46] we [34:46] don't [34:47] know [34:47] what [34:48] will [34:49] be [34:49] that [34:50] they'll [34:54] remain [34:54] consistent [34:55] with [34:55] respect [34:56] to [34:56] this [34:56] issue, [34:57] which [34:57] is [34:57] that [34:58] they're [34:59] in [34:59] favor [34:59] of [34:59] disclosure. [35:00] Thank you so much. [35:31] So, naiintindihan nila at nakakatulong ito bilang isang basihan o isang reference para ang taong bayan nage-expect sila kung anong magiging tugon ng impeachment court na ito. [35:42] Pero tatandaan po natin at babalikan po na talaga natin. Ang pinag-uusapan po dito ay betrayal of public trust. [35:49] So, ang pinag-uusapan po natin, yung opisina po, kung katanggap-tanggap pa, yung opisina na yun na nag-occupy ng office na yun ay hindi bunong katotohanan ang kanyang dinideklara sa kanyang lawful or legal income. [36:04] Pinag-uusapan po natin dito dahil ang kanyang opisina ay niloklok siya ng taong bayan dyan, ang kanyang opisina ay pag-aaring ng taong bayan. [36:12] Kaya nga po may principle tayo sa Constitution, betrayal of public office is a public trust. [36:17] Very clear po yung presentasyon ng House Prosecution Panel, meron pong betrayal of public trust dahil hindi po, para sa aming palagay, hindi po purong katotohanan lang yun na deklaro doon sa kanyang salin at saka binabayaran po niya ng idea. [36:33] Kaya nga po dapat natin tandaan, itong impeachment trial na ito, pagdating po sa usaping tagong yaman, ay dapat natin may pakita sa ating taong bayan ng impeachment court. [36:46] Ay hindi lang po naiintindihan ang kanilang power or authority, pero nararamdaman din po nila yung pulso ng ating taong bayan. [36:58] Na alam naman po natin, meron na tayong reference sa mga naunang mga impeachment trial, nung Estrada impeachment trial, at pati na rin po yung very recent, yung Corona impeachment trial. [37:10] Na isa sa naging rason kung bakit siya na-impeach ay ang kanyang hindi pagdideklara ng kanyang salin nung mga panahon na hindi pa siya magistrado. [37:24] Any follow up? Okay. Kindly pass the mic to Rosalie. Now let's hear Rosalie's question. [37:32] Good morning po, sirs. Are you expecting po the Senate impeachment court to grant your request to subpoena the tax records of the Vice President? [37:39] Well, again, we will not preempt the action to be taken by the impeachment court on this, that discretion falls in the impeachment court. [37:49] But we're very hopeful that they will grant it, again, since it's based on strong legal basis. [37:57] We do not speculate, but we are optimistic that the Senate will grant the request of the House Prosecution Panel, as again explained earlier, referencing to the previous Corona trial. [38:10] But if ever the Senate impeachment court grants your request, ano pong expectation nyo po from the President, from the President, from President Bongbong Marcos Jr., [38:20] if ever the Senate impeachment court grants your request for subpoena of tax records of the Vice President and her spouse? [38:28] Well, again, let's wait for the impeachment court's ruling on this. [38:34] Because it's possible that the impeachment court will sustain the prosecution's position that there's even no need for the President's consent. [38:47] Why? Because the Constitution trumps special laws. [38:52] So, again, this is the highest form of the Constitution. [39:23] of accountability mechanism in the Constitution. [39:28] So, ang paniniwala namin dito, mas mataas ito, doon sa provisions ng National Internal Revenue Code. [39:36] So, para makita ang buong katotohanan, merong karapatan at kapangyarihan ang Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, [39:44] para i-compel ang BIR na i-presenta ang mga dokumento na ito. [39:50] So, hintayin ho natin kung anong magiging pagpapasya ng impeachment court. [39:57] It's also possible na sasabihin din ng impeachment court na tulad ng nangyari doon sa nakaraang impeachment proceeding [40:05] na kinakailangang i-require ng BIR Commissioner na mag-request ng consent ng Presidente. [40:16] But again, ayaw ho natin pangunahan kung anong magiging pagpapasya ng impeachment court dito. [40:21] Pero you don't see the President disapproving, if ever, yun pong request, if ever po, ng BIR Commissioner? [40:31] I think what Attorney Jay has sufficiently explained to us is that, number one, the impeachment court having to exercise a very extraordinary power, [40:43] this is actually a constitutional directive to the impeachment court to exercise. [40:47] We feel that it will no longer be required for the President, again, for the President to intervene in this matter [40:56] because that already sufficient for the BIR to release this ITR by virtue of a subpoena power that will be issued by the impeachment court. [41:06] So, yun lang po yung position na. We don't want to speculate on matters that, what would happen or matters that are still pending [41:16] because pending pa rin po ang aming request for subpoena. [41:20] So, baka, Ross, baka pagdating ng panahon, baka si Yusek Castro ang magbigay sa iyo ng kasaguda. [41:29] But in the meantime, we are focused on the request of a subpoena which is still pending [41:35] and we will expect that our argument will continue today. [41:40] Another topic po. We know naman po, we are aware of the rising tensions between certain senator judges, [41:46] for example, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, Senator Ping Lakson, and Senator Erwin Tulfo. [41:54] Do you see these developments affecting the trial or madadivert ang attention ng public dun po sa attention na yun [42:04] kesa po dito sa impeachment trial? Is that a cause for concern? [42:10] Well, again, this is not something that we would expect and we hope to see. [42:14] To be honest with you, as a colleague of these senators because the Congress is composed of two chambers, [42:23] it is not for me, hindi ho sumasaya, hindi masaya na makita o nakakabigay ng saya na makita [42:35] ang ating mga senador na may kanilang, and this does not reflect the position of the House Prosecution Panel. [42:41] I'm speaking as a member of Congress. It does not give us any satisfaction to see our colleagues [42:50] having this trouble within and among themselves. [42:53] But again, when you speak about impeachment proceedings, I think it should not also be appropriate [42:59] and fair for the House Prosecution Panel to be dragged in an internal matters or internal issues [43:06] between and among the sitting judges. So I hope this can be resolved. Again, I hope they can have their own way [43:13] of resolving this since this is a separate issue altogether from the impeachment trial that we are conducting [43:19] and we're having right now. [43:20] And these are internal matters that we believe will be best addressed and resolved by the members of the Senate internally. [43:31] But we also trust that the presiding officer will make sure that we will not lose sight of the matter [43:44] that should be the main focus of everyone involved in these impeachment proceedings, [43:48] which is to allow the process to continue and allow the parties to present their respective evidence [43:57] in a proper and efficient manner. [44:02] Alright. Vivian, it's your turn. [44:06] Just a follow-up on that. May panawagan po ba kayo sa impeachment court, [44:11] presiding officer regarding po dito sa matter na to? Kasi understand last hearing, [44:17] parang a good number of minutes na dedicated dun sa pag-discuss ng matter, [44:23] parang hindi medyo lihis dito sa impeachment. [44:29] Kung may panawagan lang po, from you as a lawmaker or as a spokesperson of the prosecution? [44:40] Well, una, ako personally, ako naniniwala po ako at confident po ako sa pag-handle ng ating presiding officer [44:54] sa mga naging takbo. I think the way I observe, and again, hindi ito yung position, official position ng House Prosecution Panel. [45:05] Ako, i-observation ko po bilang isang Pilipino din na gusto rin matapos itong proseso na to. [45:12] I think the presiding officer is conscious about being legal at the same time, [45:18] the political issue and question that surrounds the impeachment trial. [45:22] Sinasabi po natin dito, sui generis ito, hindi lang po ang mga senador, ang ating mga huwis, [45:28] ang taong bayan din po ang ating mga huwis. [45:30] That's why kung meron pong leeway or elbow room for not necessarily strictly implementing legal rules in the Senate [45:41] with a vision that this is the way for our ordinary kababayan to understand what is being discussed in the impeachment court, [45:49] yun po yung aking observation kung that is how the presiding officer handles the impeachment trial. [45:57] Pagdating naman po doon sa mga in connection with yung katanungan po ni Ma'am Ross, [46:03] again, confident din po ako dahil meron silang Senate rules of impeachment, [46:07] alam naman po ng ating mga senador at ang presiding officer kung ano po yung mga hindi issues outside doon sa pinag-uusapan na article. [46:19] And I'm sure, having observed the presiding officer, [46:23] to allow other people to understand efficiently what is being discussed under the articles of impeachment, [46:29] Article 4. [46:30] Ako, optimistic ako na dahil alam niya na hindi yun makakadagdag sa pag-iunawa at pag-intindi ng ating taong bayan [46:38] na mas effective doon sa pinag-usapan sa impeachment court. [46:42] Outside of it, alam ko, confident po ako na hindi magiging platform ang impeachment trial [46:49] para sa mga individual po na hindi pagkakaunawaan ng mga senador. [46:55] And that is my personal take on that. [46:57] It does not, again, carry the position of the House Prosecution Panel. [47:01] I think everyone's in agreement at this point [47:04] that Senator Jesus Cudero has been presiding over the proceedings [47:08] in a fair, proper, and judicious manner. [47:13] And we trust that he will continue to do so. [47:15] And he will make sure that we remain focused on the important issues at hand, [47:23] which is, again, the articles of impeachment. [47:25] And we will not be distracted from peripheral matters that have nothing to do with these proceedings. [47:32] So, dapat po tumutok lang dun sa merits ng articles of impeachment? [47:39] Yes po. Dahil yun naman talagang inaasa ng taong bayan. [47:44] Kaya nga po sinasabi ko kanina, kung obserbahan niyo po yung naging handling [47:49] ng ating presenting officer, hindi masyadong technical, hindi masyadong stricto [47:55] dahil naintindihan niya na parte doon sa legal and technical na aspeto ng impeachment court. [48:01] Ito po yung isang political question na pinag-usapan po natin dito, [48:06] yung fitness ng pangalawang Pangulo na whether mag-continue ba siya as Vice President. [48:12] And the way to do that and the way he was handling it is para maintindihan po [48:17] ng ating taong bayan kung ano na pag-usapan sa impeachment court. [48:22] Kasi hindi naman po lahat ng taong bayan ordinary yung mamamayan ay naintindihan mga legal jargons. [48:28] So, base po doon sa nakita natin, confident po ako na kung ano man yung mapag-usapan dyan [48:37] na hindi makakatulong sa pag-intindi ng ating taong bayan sa napag-usapan sa impeachment court, [48:43] confident po ako na hindi ito magiging paksa sa proceeding sa impeachment court [48:51] dahil meron pong Senate rules na kanila po, rules on impeachment na kanila pong sinusubay ba yan at pinapractice. [49:02] Last na lang po, paglilinaw lang po kasi parang nare-reference yung mga ruling ng ibang Senator Judges [49:08] doon sa Corona trial when it comes to disclosure of bank records. [49:13] Pero parang Senator Judge Cayetano was making a distinction between yung records, financial records, [49:19] nung mismong official at yung asawa at yung mga kumpanyang related sa kanila. [49:25] Covered po ba ng exemptions even yung sa financial records nung asawa po at pati po yung mga kumpanya na related sa kanila? [49:35] Well, what you have to remember is in the SAL-N, what is declared there is the conjugal properties of the Vice President and her husband. [49:48] So yung nakadeklara ho doon na around 80 million na total net worth, kasama ho dyan yung conjugal properties nila. [49:56] So ngayon, para masuri natin kung accurate ba itong amount na declared sa kanyang SAL-N, [50:03] kailangan natin makita din ang conjugal assets nila as reflected in their bank records [50:11] as well as ano yung pareho nilang kinita sa same period na ito na makikita naman natin sa kanilang mga BIR filings. [50:20] Vivian, ito yung sinasabi nila sa inyo sa church, in richness and in health, in poorer or in richer or in poorer till death do us part. [50:32] Ganon talaga ay by virtue of the union, talagang magkasama kayo. [50:35] At sas, hindi ba sinasabi nyo yan pag kinakasal, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer till death do us part. [50:48] By private person. [50:50] If you think ito si attorney Jay, he will correct me, correct me kung malaba. [50:54] By virtue of a union, itong marriage, by virtue of that marriage and that union, legally speaking, you're treated as one entity. [51:05] Because again, what we want to see here are the total assets of the vice president, her total funds. [51:14] Para makita ito, as explained by Kong Zia, dahil siya ay merong asawa, under our laws, conjugal property ho yan. [51:24] Kung ano yung mga property sa pangalan ng iyong asawa, property mo rin ho yan. [51:30] So, ang pinag-uusapan natin dito, gusto natin makita sa impeachment proceedings na ito, na deklara ba ng tama ang buong yaman ng vice presidente sa kanyang sal-in as required under the rules? [51:44] So, isang paraan lang para makita, ang sagot sa katanungan na yan. [51:49] Kailangan natin makita ang buong yaman niya. [51:51] So, kailangan natin makita anong yaman na nakapangalan sa kanya at ano din ang nakapangalan sa kanyang asawa. [51:58] Dahil yan, again, as I mentioned, kasama yan sa kanyang kabuong yaman. [52:04] Hello po, Lance from Newswatch Plus. [52:08] Yung mga nag-rally po sa labas, yung ilan sa mga sinasabi po nila ay, yung iba daw pong senador ay obvious na may pinapanigan. [52:17] So, sa hanay po ng prosecution, do you see any actions from the senator judges na nagpakita na sila ng partiality during the proceedings? [52:27] Kasi, ilan sa ating mga kababayan, yun po yung nagiging po na nila, na yung ilang mga senador tila may dinedepensahan na. [52:34] So, do you believe in those observations as well? [52:37] Well, sa amin sa prosecution, hanggang ngayon, umaasa, naniniwala at nananalig pa rin kami na tatalimang lahat ng mga senator judges sa kanilang obligations under the rules of impeachment to observe political neutrality. [52:55] Which means that they should participate in these proceedings without any undue discrimination towards anyone and regardless of their political preferences and affiliations. [53:07] So, umaasa pa rin kami, nananalig kami na ang mga senator judges natin maghahatol, magpapasya, base pa rin sa ebidensya na ilalatag ng magkabilang panig sa paglilitis na ito. [53:22] Yung neutrality na sinasabi ni Atty. J, hindi lang namin yan inaasahan, base po yan sa Senate impeachment rules. [53:30] Sinasabi po talaga dyan, maging neutral po ang ating mga senator judges. [53:34] Pero I think the ultimate message that pinapakita natin sa observation natin kung bakit nagkakaroon na rin ng ganong klaseng clamor engagement ang ating publiko [53:47] ay unang-una, very clear po na ang messaging dito ay tama, sui generis, legal and political. [53:57] Dahil ang ating mga senador, ang Senate, political office po ito. [54:04] So directly, ang ating employers ay ang taong bayan. [54:09] That's why sinasabi sa Constitution, public office is a public trust. [54:12] So nakikita natin na yung ating mga taong bayan ay nagmamassive din, nag-evaluate din, [54:19] at sila rin ang tumatay yung half, kumbaga, kakahati, kalahati, saan magiging huwis itong impeachment trial na ito. [54:27] So yun lang po yung nakikita natin na observation. [54:30] Dahil nga, katotohanan ang gusto nilang malaman. [54:32] Sir, sorry, sabi niyo ba, umaasa kayo na the senator judges will be politically neutral at this point? [54:38] Are they being politically neutral at this point? [54:44] Well, it's really hard to get inside the minds of the individual senator judges. [54:50] But again, the House Prosecution Panel continues to present evidence and testimonies of the witnesses [54:58] for the senator judges to have sufficient information or sufficient reason for them [55:09] to arrive into impartial and sound judgment. [55:13] As to how they care themselves in the court, [55:19] karaka, ano po nila, trabaho po nila yan, [55:21] na magtanong, magtanong sa depensa at magtanong sa prosecution panel. [55:30] So it looks like you're really trying to get me cited in contempt. [55:33] Pero mas sabi lang namin, [55:36] huwag muna natin silang pangunahan. [55:39] Bigyan natin pagkakataon na pakita sa ating lahat [55:42] na tatalima sila sa obligasyon nila to remain politically neutral [55:46] at magpapasya sila. [55:49] Magbibigay sila ng paghahatol, again, [55:51] base sa ebidensya, base sa katotohanan. [55:54] Dahil at the end of the day, [55:56] yan ang sigurado naming hihingin ng ating mga kababayan. [56:01] Tsaka matagal pa itong impeachment trial, [56:03] huwag masyadong excited. [56:06] So, tingnan po natin anong magiging daloy nitong impeachment trial na ito. [56:13] Alright, for our last question, Joseph? [56:17] Sir, good afternoon. [56:17] With regard to the subpoena, [56:20] I think second day nat touch on, [56:22] I think you want to look into seven banks. [56:27] Two in Green Hills, five in Davao, correct? [56:30] How many bank accounts are we talking about here? [56:32] To whom do this belong to? [56:34] Are there joint accounts with the Vice President? [56:36] Can we have them in details? [56:37] We will have to look at the records [56:41] to make sure that we'll be able to give you the specifics. [56:46] But what is clear is that all of these bank accounts [56:50] are based on the AMLAC reports [56:54] that were submitted by the Executive Director of AMLAC. [56:58] So, this is not a general inquiry into her bank accounts. [57:03] Alalahanin natin, [57:04] in those suspicious transaction reports [57:08] and covert transaction reports, [57:11] what was specified there are not just the amounts, [57:14] but the specific bank accounts [57:18] and the branches [57:20] that were involved in these financial transactions. [57:24] So, specific, [57:26] so both belonging to the Vice President [57:30] and the husband [57:31] and the financial interest as well, [57:35] meaning companies where they have financial interest. [57:38] Are there any joint accounts aside from Attorney Manz? [57:41] I'll just go back. [57:42] Just to remind you, [57:43] I think Attorney G was referencing [57:45] during the confirmation hearing of the Committee on Justice [57:48] where AMLA presented these documents, [57:53] again, flagged by AMLA [57:55] as under suspicious transactions. [57:57] We're not talking about the branch alone, [58:00] the amount, [58:01] but we're also talking about the in and out [58:03] of the withdrawal [58:05] and the deposits of certain amounts [58:07] over the course of, [58:10] I don't know, [58:11] months or of course, [58:13] a number of months and years. [58:15] So, yun po yung titignan natin. [58:17] It's very specific, no? [58:18] As to whether this will be, [58:20] again, [58:21] Jay, [58:22] isn't it, [58:22] the question is, [58:24] conjugal, [58:24] I said, [58:24] it is explained by [58:25] Attorney Jay, [58:27] it covers [58:28] accounts [58:31] of both [58:32] the wife, [58:34] I mean, [58:35] the respondent, [58:36] Vice President Sara Duterte, [58:38] with that of [58:38] her husband, [58:40] Attorney [58:40] Manz Carpio. [58:42] just the two of them, [58:43] no more other personalities? [58:46] I'll have to get back to you on that [58:49] just to make sure [58:49] that we'll be able to give you [58:51] an accurate information. [58:52] But what is certain [58:53] is that [58:53] either the Vice President [58:56] or her husband [58:58] or jointly, [59:00] they're the ones [59:01] who own these accounts. [59:03] But as to whether [59:04] their accounts jointly [59:06] owned by the Vice President [59:08] and another person, [59:10] I will have to check. [59:12] But what I can assure you [59:14] is that [59:14] they involved [59:17] the Vice President. [59:19] So shift lang ng konti. [59:20] So you're closing tomorrow [59:21] kay Director Matibag. [59:24] Will he be adding [59:24] anything more [59:26] or will he just be repeating [59:28] what LOTOC [59:29] and Kalilong [59:31] have already [59:32] testified to? [59:35] I think [59:35] Jay will give up. [59:36] But as a general [59:38] information [59:40] that we can share [59:41] to you [59:41] without giving away [59:43] much [59:44] kasi [59:44] hindi pa natin [59:46] na papakinggan [59:47] ang kanyang testimony. [59:49] I think [59:49] number one [59:50] is very clear [59:51] that he will [59:52] again corroborate [59:53] the testimonies [59:55] of Mr. [59:56] LOTOC, [59:56] Kalilong, [59:57] and Attorney LOTOC. [59:58] He would confirm. [1:00:00] As to how [1:00:01] the investigation [1:00:03] is proceeding, [1:00:04] those are the things [1:00:05] that probably [1:00:06] the House Prosecution [1:00:07] Panel [1:00:08] will be asking [1:00:09] Director Matibag [1:00:11] doon po sa act [1:00:13] yung [1:00:14] anong status na [1:00:17] just to be [1:00:18] just to give you [1:00:19] general info [1:00:20] the status [1:00:22] of that investigation. [1:00:24] As to the details, [1:00:25] Attorney Jay [1:00:25] can respond to that. [1:00:27] Well, I'm sure [1:00:28] you could [1:00:28] understand [1:00:29] why I can't [1:00:30] give you [1:00:31] the details [1:00:31] of his testimony [1:00:32] tomorrow. [1:00:32] But what I can tell you [1:00:34] is that [1:00:34] aside from [1:00:36] corroborating [1:00:37] testimonies given [1:00:39] by our two witnesses, [1:00:40] he will be giving [1:00:41] new important [1:00:43] information. [1:00:44] And I can also [1:00:45] assure you [1:00:46] that you wouldn't [1:00:47] want to miss [1:00:47] his testimony [1:00:48] tomorrow. [1:00:50] I'll be more direct [1:00:51] because [1:00:51] senators were [1:00:52] interested last week [1:00:53] even the public [1:00:54] probably. [1:00:55] The issue is [1:00:56] there are threats [1:00:58] but [1:00:59] whether it's [1:01:02] material to [1:01:03] the offense [1:01:04] or not [1:01:04] but the question [1:01:05] is [1:01:05] meron bang [1:01:06] nakontrata [1:01:06] talaga? [1:01:07] Will [1:01:07] Director Matibog [1:01:08] be able to [1:01:09] answer that? [1:01:10] Okay. [1:01:11] First of all, [1:01:12] let me be clear. [1:01:13] Meron bang [1:01:13] nakontrata? [1:01:14] Our position here [1:01:15] is there's no more [1:01:16] question about it. [1:01:18] Meron. [1:01:18] Anong basis? [1:01:22] Sorry. [1:01:23] Ang admission [1:01:23] against interest [1:01:25] ng vice-presidente [1:01:26] herself. [1:01:27] Again, [1:01:28] under rules [1:01:28] and evidence, [1:01:29] this is one [1:01:30] of the highest [1:01:30] forms [1:01:31] of evidence. [1:01:33] It's an admission [1:01:34] against interest. [1:01:35] She clearly [1:01:36] stated [1:01:36] that she [1:01:39] already had [1:01:40] an agreement [1:01:41] with an [1:01:41] assassin [1:01:41] to assassinate [1:01:43] the president [1:01:44] and three days [1:01:44] after when she [1:01:45] was given [1:01:46] an opportunity [1:01:46] to correct [1:01:47] her statement, [1:01:48] take it back, [1:01:48] say it was a [1:01:49] joke or whatever, [1:01:50] she did not [1:01:51] do that. [1:01:52] She doubled [1:01:52] down and [1:01:53] she tried [1:01:54] to defend [1:01:54] that statement [1:01:56] by saying [1:01:56] that revenge [1:01:57] from the grave [1:01:58] is not a [1:01:58] criminal act. [1:01:59] So first, [1:02:00] is there already [1:02:01] an assassin? [1:02:02] Has that been [1:02:03] established? [1:02:03] The position [1:02:04] of the prosecution [1:02:05] is yes. [1:02:06] Now, [1:02:07] will [1:02:07] Director Matibag [1:02:10] also testify [1:02:11] on that matter? [1:02:12] Again, [1:02:13] please, [1:02:13] let's wait [1:02:14] for his testimony [1:02:14] tomorrow and again, [1:02:16] I assure you, [1:02:16] you wouldn't want [1:02:17] to miss his testimony [1:02:18] tomorrow. [1:02:19] All right? [1:02:22] Gusto ko lang [1:02:23] as an ordinary [1:02:24] person. [1:02:25] As an ordinary [1:02:26] person, [1:02:26] again, [1:02:27] let's go back [1:02:28] to what we [1:02:30] have been [1:02:30] saying all [1:02:31] along. [1:02:32] Now, [1:02:33] this is not [1:02:33] a criminal [1:02:34] proceeding [1:02:34] na kailangan [1:02:36] wala talagang [1:02:37] beyond reasonable [1:02:38] doubt. [1:02:39] I think, [1:02:40] if you ask me [1:02:41] personally, [1:02:42] I think it's [1:02:43] whether or not [1:02:45] there's really [1:02:45] that hitman [1:02:48] na nakontrata, [1:02:49] it's already [1:02:50] irrelevant. [1:02:50] The point [1:02:51] here is that [1:02:52] is it tolerable? [1:02:54] Is it acceptable [1:02:55] based on [1:02:56] constitutional [1:02:56] standard for a [1:02:57] sitting second [1:02:58] highest official [1:03:00] in the land [1:03:00] to make these [1:03:02] gravetails [1:03:02] against a [1:03:03] sitting president? [1:03:04] I think that's [1:03:04] the most [1:03:05] important question [1:03:06] that we need [1:03:07] to ask [1:03:08] of the [1:03:09] vice president. [1:03:10] Hindi ho nila [1:03:11] na refute yun, [1:03:12] totoo siyang [1:03:12] nagbanta, [1:03:13] whether or not [1:03:14] meron kayong [1:03:15] mukha, [1:03:15] may pangalan, [1:03:16] may tao, [1:03:17] that to me [1:03:17] is irrelevant. [1:03:18] The point [1:03:18] is this is [1:03:19] a trial [1:03:21] where we [1:03:21] actually [1:03:22] measured [1:03:23] the fitness [1:03:23] of the [1:03:24] vice president [1:03:25] according [1:03:26] to the [1:03:26] constitution. [1:03:29] Tama ba? [1:03:32] Allowed ba? [1:03:34] Based [1:03:34] sa [1:03:35] constitutional [1:03:35] standard [1:03:36] na magbanta [1:03:36] ang vice [1:03:38] president [1:03:38] laban kanino [1:03:39] man? [1:03:41] Sir, [1:03:42] medyo [1:03:42] advanceer lang [1:03:42] ng konti. [1:03:43] Assuming [1:03:44] we do [1:03:45] finish today [1:03:46] with the [1:03:46] ruling [1:03:46] and we [1:03:47] proceed [1:03:47] with [1:03:47] Director [1:03:49] Matibag [1:03:50] and we [1:03:50] finish [1:03:50] with [1:03:51] Matibag [1:03:51] tomorrow, [1:03:53] was the [1:03:54] prosecution [1:03:54] able to [1:03:55] convince [1:03:56] the [1:03:56] senator [1:03:57] judges [1:03:57] that [1:03:57] number [1:03:58] one, [1:03:59] the [1:03:59] threats [1:03:59] are [1:04:00] real [1:04:01] and [1:04:02] totoo [1:04:02] sinasabi [1:04:02] niya, [1:04:03] but [1:04:03] do they [1:04:03] rise [1:04:04] to [1:04:04] unimpeachable [1:04:05] offense? [1:04:06] Kasi yun yung [1:04:06] parang nandun yung [1:04:07] mga senators [1:04:08] sa parang, [1:04:09] okay, [1:04:09] baka yun [1:04:10] maybe [1:04:11] kind of [1:04:12] agree [1:04:12] with what [1:04:13] the defense [1:04:13] is saying [1:04:14] that these [1:04:14] are ordinary [1:04:14] crimes, [1:04:15] RTC, [1:04:15] MTC. [1:04:16] But [1:04:16] to you, [1:04:17] were you [1:04:17] able to, [1:04:18] since we're [1:04:19] closing [1:04:19] Article 4, [1:04:20] were you [1:04:20] able to [1:04:21] convince [1:04:21] the [1:04:22] court [1:04:22] with [1:04:23] your [1:04:23] three [1:04:23] witnesses [1:04:24] that [1:04:25] this [1:04:25] is [1:04:26] an [1:04:26] impeachable [1:04:27] offense? [1:04:29] Well, [1:04:29] first, [1:04:30] out of [1:04:30] respect [1:04:30] to the [1:04:31] impeachment [1:04:31] court, [1:04:32] who has [1:04:32] been [1:04:32] granted [1:04:33] the sole [1:04:33] authority [1:04:34] to decide [1:04:34] on this [1:04:35] matter, [1:04:35] we will [1:04:36] not preempt [1:04:36] the judgment [1:04:37] that they [1:04:37] will reach. [1:04:38] This is [1:04:38] the decision [1:04:39] that's [1:04:39] for them [1:04:40] to make. [1:04:41] But [1:04:41] what we [1:04:41] can say [1:04:42] is we [1:04:42] are confident [1:04:43] with the [1:04:44] evidence [1:04:44] that we [1:04:45] have [1:04:45] presented. [1:04:46] Maliwanag [1:04:47] na [1:04:47] maliwanag [1:04:48] na wala [1:04:48] nang [1:04:48] question. [1:04:49] Doon [1:04:50] sa video [1:04:50] kung saan [1:04:51] ginawa [1:04:51] ng [1:04:52] vice [1:04:52] presidente [1:04:53] ang [1:04:53] pananakot [1:04:54] at [1:04:54] pag-amin [1:04:55] na [1:04:58] meron [1:04:58] na siyang [1:04:59] nakausap [1:05:00] na mamatay [1:05:01] tao [1:05:01] na patay [1:05:02] ng [1:05:02] presidente [1:05:03] at [1:05:03] itong [1:05:06] tao [1:05:07] na to [1:05:07] ay [1:05:07] pumayag [1:05:09] na. [1:05:09] At [1:05:10] huwag [1:05:10] natin [1:05:10] kalimutan [1:05:11] itong [1:05:11] napaki [1:05:11] importanteng [1:05:12] detalye. [1:05:13] Hindi [1:05:13] siya [1:05:14] tumigil [1:05:14] doon. [1:05:14] Inexplain [1:05:15] pa niya, [1:05:15] inanunsyo [1:05:16] siya [1:05:16] sa lahat, [1:05:17] anong [1:05:17] instructions [1:05:18] niya [1:05:18] sa [1:05:18] bagay [1:05:18] na to. [1:05:19] Be [1:05:19] relentless [1:05:20] in carrying [1:05:21] it out. [1:05:22] Huwag kang [1:05:22] tumigil [1:05:23] hanggat [1:05:23] hindi mo [1:05:23] sila [1:05:24] napapatay. [1:05:25] So, [1:05:25] meron pa [1:05:26] bang [1:05:26] question [1:05:26] kung [1:05:27] sinabi [1:05:27] niya [1:05:27] itong [1:05:28] bagay [1:05:28] na to [1:05:28] hindi, [1:05:29] wala [1:05:29] na. [1:05:30] Tulad [1:05:30] nang sinabi [1:05:31] nang sinabi [1:05:31] din [1:05:31] kanina, [1:05:32] meron [1:05:32] din [1:05:32] bang [1:05:32] question, [1:05:33] meron [1:05:33] na [1:05:33] ba [1:05:34] kaming [1:05:34] ebidensya [1:05:35] na [1:05:35] nagpapakita [1:05:36] na meron [1:05:37] talagang [1:05:37] tao, [1:05:38] tulad [1:05:38] ho [1:05:38] nang sinabi [1:05:39] ni [1:05:39] attorney [1:05:39] Lotok [1:05:40] nung [1:05:40] tinatanong [1:05:41] siya, [1:05:41] cross [1:05:42] examination [1:05:42] by the [1:05:43] senators, [1:05:44] napakaliwanag [1:05:45] din [1:05:45] ang [1:05:45] sagot [1:05:45] niya. [1:05:46] Meron, [1:05:47] bakit [1:05:47] it came [1:05:48] from [1:05:49] the admission [1:05:50] against interest [1:05:50] of the [1:05:51] respondent [1:05:52] herself. [1:05:52] So now, [1:05:55] to answer [1:05:55] your question, [1:05:56] does this show [1:05:57] that, [1:05:59] does this [1:06:00] rise to a level [1:06:01] of an [1:06:02] impeachable [1:06:02] offense? [1:06:04] Pwede ho ba [1:06:05] natin [1:06:05] i-consider na to [1:06:06] na [1:06:06] pagtataksil [1:06:08] sa tiwala [1:06:08] ng bayan? [1:06:10] Pwede ba [1:06:11] itong [1:06:11] makonsider [1:06:12] na isang [1:06:13] malakas [1:06:15] at hindi [1:06:15] katanggap-tanggap [1:06:16] na paglabag [1:06:17] sa saligang [1:06:18] batas? [1:06:19] Again, [1:06:20] napaka [1:06:21] kailangan [1:06:22] kuhong [1:06:22] balikan [1:06:23] ano ang [1:06:23] from the [1:06:24] start [1:06:24] na sinabi [1:06:25] ni Chairman [1:06:26] Jinky [1:06:26] Luistro [1:06:27] at ni [1:06:28] Kong [1:06:28] Noy [1:06:28] Defensor. [1:06:29] Sa buong [1:06:30] history, [1:06:32] kasaysayan [1:06:33] ng Pilipinas, [1:06:34] minsan lang, [1:06:35] ngayon lang [1:06:35] na nangyari [1:06:36] na nagkaroon tayo [1:06:38] ng vice-presidente [1:06:39] na merong [1:06:40] kaugnayan [1:06:41] sa isang [1:06:41] mamatay tao. [1:06:43] Vice-presidente [1:06:44] na nagkaroon [1:06:45] ng [1:06:47] agreement, [1:06:49] nagkaroon [1:06:50] ng kasunduan [1:06:52] sa isang [1:06:52] mamatay tao [1:06:53] na patay [1:06:54] no less [1:06:55] than the [1:06:56] president [1:06:56] himself. [1:07:00] Tingin ko [1:07:00] maliwanag [1:07:01] ang sagot [1:07:01] na yan [1:07:01] sa mga [1:07:02] kababayan [1:07:03] natin. [1:07:03] Kung katanggap-tanggap [1:07:05] ba [1:07:05] na manatili [1:07:06] sa posisyon [1:07:07] ang pangalawang [1:07:08] pinakamataas [1:07:09] na lingkod [1:07:10] bayan. [1:07:12] So again, [1:07:12] we will not [1:07:13] preempt [1:07:13] the [1:07:14] decision [1:07:15] of the [1:07:16] impeachment [1:07:16] court on [1:07:17] this, [1:07:17] but [1:07:17] we trust [1:07:18] on the [1:07:19] evidence [1:07:19] that we've [1:07:19] presented [1:07:20] so far. [1:07:20] Joseph, [1:07:22] dadagdagan ko [1:07:23] lang yung [1:07:23] sinabi [1:07:24] ni [1:07:24] attorney [1:07:24] Jay. [1:07:26] The [1:07:26] vice [1:07:26] president [1:07:26] cannot [1:07:27] separate [1:07:28] her [1:07:28] personality [1:07:29] from the [1:07:29] office [1:07:30] that she [1:07:30] occupies. [1:07:32] An [1:07:32] office [1:07:32] according to [1:07:33] the [1:07:33] constitution [1:07:33] is an [1:07:34] impeachable [1:07:34] offense. [1:07:35] So kung [1:07:36] ano mo po [1:07:37] yung [1:07:37] ginawa [1:07:37] niya, [1:07:38] sinabi [1:07:38] niya [1:07:39] doon [1:07:40] sa [1:07:40] video [1:07:41] na yun [1:07:42] na grave [1:07:43] threat. [1:07:44] By the [1:07:44] way, [1:07:44] grave [1:07:44] threat is [1:07:45] in itself [1:07:45] a crime. [1:07:48] Kung [1:07:48] siya po [1:07:49] ay [1:07:49] private [1:07:50] individual [1:07:51] probably [1:07:52] may bababa [1:07:53] ito sa [1:07:54] mga [1:07:54] lower [1:07:55] courts [1:07:55] like [1:07:56] MTC, [1:07:57] RTC, [1:07:57] but we're [1:07:58] not actually [1:07:58] dealing [1:07:59] with her [1:08:00] as a [1:08:00] person. [1:08:01] We are [1:08:02] accounting [1:08:02] her for [1:08:03] the office [1:08:03] that she [1:08:04] represents [1:08:05] and she [1:08:05] occupy. [1:08:06] Which [1:08:07] is the [1:08:07] second [1:08:08] highest [1:08:08] official [1:08:08] in the [1:08:08] land. [1:08:09] Number [1:08:09] two, [1:08:11] to me [1:08:12] it's [1:08:13] constituting [1:08:15] impeachable [1:08:16] offense [1:08:16] because [1:08:17] number [1:08:18] one, [1:08:20] you don't [1:08:20] have to [1:08:21] wait [1:08:22] until [1:08:23] somebody [1:08:24] lies down [1:08:25] lifeless [1:08:25] in the [1:08:26] street. [1:08:27] A grave [1:08:27] threat is [1:08:27] a grave [1:08:28] threat [1:08:28] precisely [1:08:28] because [1:08:29] it has [1:08:29] not been [1:08:29] consummated [1:08:30] yet. [1:08:31] Kung may [1:08:31] namatay, [1:08:32] hindi na yung [1:08:32] grave [1:08:32] threat, [1:08:33] murder [1:08:33] na yun [1:08:34] ang [1:08:34] kaso [1:08:34] doon. [1:08:35] And I [1:08:37] hope [1:08:38] it [1:08:38] will [1:08:38] not [1:08:38] be [1:08:39] successful. [1:08:42] Kasi [1:08:42] ang [1:08:43] sinabi [1:08:43] niya, [1:08:43] wag kang [1:08:44] titigil. [1:08:45] And I [1:08:46] hope to [1:08:47] God, [1:08:47] and God [1:08:47] forbid, [1:08:49] that they [1:08:49] will never [1:08:49] be successful [1:08:50] because we [1:08:51] don't want [1:08:51] the [1:08:53] president [1:08:53] and [1:08:54] first lady [1:08:57] and former [1:08:57] speaker [1:08:58] may [1:08:58] mangyari [1:08:59] po sa [1:08:59] kanilang [1:09:00] hindi [1:09:01] masama. [1:09:02] I think [1:09:02] the question [1:09:03] that we [1:09:03] also ask [1:09:04] our people [1:09:04] is this, [1:09:06] moving forward, [1:09:07] looking forward, [1:09:10] tama lang ba [1:09:10] na yung [1:09:11] isang [1:09:12] opisyal [1:09:12] ay wala [1:09:13] siyang [1:09:13] level of [1:09:14] restraint, [1:09:15] na pag [1:09:15] galit [1:09:16] lang, [1:09:16] ay pwede [1:09:17] na siyang [1:09:17] magbanta [1:09:18] kung ano-ano [1:09:18] lang, [1:09:19] at makipag-usap [1:09:20] kanikanino [1:09:21] lang sa [1:09:22] isang [1:09:22] mamamatay [1:09:23] tao [1:09:23] para sa [1:09:25] kanya [1:09:25] ay perceived [1:09:26] to be [1:09:26] her or [1:09:27] his [1:09:28] enemy. [1:09:28] Imagine [1:09:29] if that [1:09:31] person [1:09:32] actually [1:09:33] demands [1:09:34] authority [1:09:36] from [1:09:38] let's say [1:09:39] for example [1:09:40] if he [1:09:41] or she [1:09:41] is a [1:09:42] commander-in-chief [1:09:42] na meron [1:09:46] siyang [1:09:47] access [1:09:47] sa [1:09:49] mga [1:09:49] ganitong [1:09:50] resources [1:09:51] ng gobyerno [1:09:51] tapos [1:09:52] pag magalit [1:09:52] ay [1:09:53] God [1:09:54] forbid [1:09:54] may [1:09:55] mangyari [1:09:56] sa mga [1:09:56] hindi [1:09:56] niya [1:09:57] kasundo [1:09:59] para sa [1:09:59] kanya. [1:10:00] So I [1:10:00] think [1:10:00] that's [1:10:00] the [1:10:01] ultimate [1:10:01] question [1:10:02] that we [1:10:03] need [1:10:03] to ask [1:10:03] ourselves. [1:10:04] Is this [1:10:05] again, [1:10:06] is this [1:10:07] acceptable? [1:10:09] Do we [1:10:09] even [1:10:09] expect [1:10:10] this [1:10:10] from [1:10:12] our [1:10:12] public [1:10:14] officers [1:10:14] let alone [1:10:15] a second [1:10:16] official, [1:10:17] second highest [1:10:18] official in [1:10:19] the land? [1:10:20] So [1:10:20] yun ang parati [1:10:21] nating [1:10:21] babalikan [1:10:22] na tanong [1:10:23] ng [1:10:24] tanong [1:10:25] ng [1:10:25] ating [1:10:25] taong [1:10:26] bayan? [1:10:26] Ito [1:10:27] ba [1:10:27] ay [1:10:27] katanggap-tanggap [1:10:29] na [1:10:30] pamamaraan [1:10:31] kung paano [1:10:32] i-express [1:10:33] na isang [1:10:33] halal [1:10:35] publiko [1:10:36] ang [1:10:36] kanyang [1:10:36] galit [1:10:37] na [1:10:37] alam [1:10:38] naman [1:10:38] po [1:10:38] natin [1:10:39] na [1:10:40] merong [1:10:40] constitutional [1:10:41] standard [1:10:42] na [1:10:42] sinaset [1:10:43] ng [1:10:43] ating [1:10:43] saligang [1:10:43] batas [1:10:44] at [1:10:45] meron [1:10:45] din [1:10:45] pong [1:10:45] ang [1:10:46] opisina [1:10:47] na [1:10:47] kanyang [1:10:47] in-occupy [1:10:48] ay [1:10:48] dinideclera [1:10:49] na [1:10:50] isang [1:10:50] impeachable [1:10:51] office. [1:10:51] So [1:10:52] always po [1:10:53] natin [1:10:54] yun [1:10:54] binabalikan [1:10:55] at [1:10:56] always po [1:10:57] yun [1:10:57] ang katanungan [1:10:58] ng ating [1:10:58] town [1:10:58] bayan [1:10:59] at [1:10:59] yun [1:10:59] po [1:10:59] yung [1:11:00] pinipresenta [1:11:00] ng [1:11:00] House [1:11:01] Prosecution [1:11:01] Panel [1:11:02] sa [1:11:02] impeachment [1:11:04] court [1:11:04] na ito. [1:11:05] Alright, [1:11:06] on that note, [1:11:08] taking from [1:11:09] Kong, [1:11:09] we should [1:11:10] move on. [1:11:11] So [1:11:11] salamat po [1:11:12] sa ating [1:11:12] mga kaibigan [1:11:13] sa media [1:11:13] at sa ating [1:11:14] mga panahoy [1:11:14] ngayon [1:11:15] si [1:11:15] Congressman [1:11:16] Alon [1:11:17] Tadjo [1:11:17] ang [1:11:18] Atty. [1:11:18] Benjamin [1:11:19] J. [1:11:19] Toloso [1:11:19] Jr. [1:11:20] Sa ating [1:11:20] mga kaibigan [1:11:21] na [1:11:22] sumusubaybay [1:11:23] patuloy po [1:11:24] natin [1:11:24] tutukan [1:11:25] ang mga [1:11:25] kaganapan [1:11:26] ngayong [1:11:26] hapon [1:11:27] sama-sama [1:11:27] tayong [1:11:27] sumubaybay. [1:11:28] Magandang [1:11:29] tangali [1:11:29] sa inyong lahat. [1:11:30] Disparen [1:11:32] chora [1:11:32] sa inyong [1:11:36] hir [1:11:36] sa inyong [1:11:38] seng [1:11:39] sa inyong [1:11:41] hai [1:11:42] ipo [1:11:43] sa inyong [1:11:44] sa inyong [1:11:45] sa inyong [1:11:45] sa inyong [1:11:46] sa inyong [1:11:46] nge [1:11:46] as [1:11:47] sa [1:11:47] inyong