About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of - Reps. Luistro, Zamora and Adiong press conference (June 15, 2026) — GMA Regional TV - Replay from GMA Regional TV, published June 15, 2026. The transcript contains 13,676 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"President, and joining us this morning, our House Lead Prosecutor and House Commitment Justice Chairperson, Attorney J. Bill Ginky Beatrix Loistro of Batangas, House Prosecutor Isabel Maria Bell J. Zamora of San Juan, and House Trial Spokesperson Zia Alonto Adyong of Lano Del Sur. Let us hear the..."
[0:00] President, and joining us this morning, our House Lead Prosecutor and House Commitment
[0:06] Justice Chairperson, Attorney J. Bill Ginky Beatrix Loistro of Batangas, House Prosecutor
[0:13] Isabel Maria Bell J. Zamora of San Juan, and House Trial Spokesperson Zia Alonto Adyong
[0:21] of Lano Del Sur.
[0:22] Let us hear the opening remarks of the group through our Lead Prosecutor Loistro, ma'am.
[0:29] Good morning, everyone.
[0:33] So, today, we are scheduled to file our pre-trial brief.
[0:40] As previously announced, today is the deadline for the filing of this pleading, no?
[0:46] And for the understanding of our beloved countrymen, ano po ba ang kahalagahan itong pre-trial brief?
[0:52] Number one, it contains stipulations of facts which will be presented for the other parties
[1:01] either admission or denial, no?
[1:05] With this, nababawasan po yung pagtatalunan ng dalawang kampo during the trial.
[1:13] If they admit our offer for stipulation, it means it need not be proved.
[1:19] But if they deny our offer for stipulation, then it means it has to be proven during the presentation of evidence.
[1:27] Second, part of the pre-trial brief, we will be submitting as well the list of our witnesses, no?
[1:34] So, I wish to advance information, bagaman I cannot provide details yet, because we continue to finalize the pre-trial brief, perhaps until the time of filing today.
[1:47] It is more than 25.
[1:49] The witnesses is not only 25, it's not only 30, it's even more.
[1:57] As to the exact figure and who these witnesses are, let's wait until the pre-trial brief is filed with the impeachment court today, no?
[2:07] And then for the last item, that will be the evidence to be marked, madami, superdami.
[2:17] Because you know that there are two articles na talagang voluminous ang ating exhibits.
[2:24] That includes the allegations on confidential fund and the allegations on unexplained wealth.
[2:33] And of course, we are anticipating na on June 18, the 11 prosecutors, together with the 10 private prosecutors who were introduced during the last press conference,
[2:44] I mag-a-attend doon sa impeachment court, although this will be held before the clerk of court, who is our Secretary of Senate, General Bantug, no?
[2:56] We wish to formalize as well during the pre-trial conference as to the position of the impeachment court, whether open rule will be adopted, no?
[3:07] Pag sinabi nating open rule, ibig sabihin the subject matter of cross, re-cross, can go beyond what was touched during direct and redirect, no?
[3:21] That means open rule.
[3:23] Otherwise, the cross or re-cross should be confined only to the subject matters which were touched during the direct examination and cross-examination.
[3:35] I wish to formalize as well on this upcoming pre-trial conference the possibility of us, the prosecutors, and even the defense to use Filipino language when the same is possible.
[3:53] Because I understand that there are legal terminologies which are really hard to translate, no?
[3:59] This is because we understand that this is a constitutional process, this is not purely legal, what is at stake is the interest of the Filipino people.
[4:11] So it is our intention that everything that will happen during the impeachment trial should be understandable on the part of the ordinary Filipinos, no?
[4:20] And I wish to reach out as well through this opportunity to the mainstream media and even the social media, let us encourage the accurate dissemination of information, no?
[4:37] And as a matter of fact, I reached out to the leadership as well, at ito rin ang gusto kong ilapit kay Kong Ziya and the other members of the house who are from Visayas, from Mindanao, let us come up with simultaneous translation of the trial which will be held on starting on July 6.
[5:00] As, sana habang nag-trial, meron tayong translation to as many dialects as possible in order to make sure that the entire Philippine nation is on the same page.
[5:13] After all, this is a constitutional process.
[5:17] We want the entire nation to walk with us as we start, continue, and conclude the impeachment trial.
[5:25] Thank you.
[5:27] Thank you, Chairperson Toistra.
[5:30] To open the floor for questions, let us hear from Rosalie Kass of UNTV.
[5:36] Good morning po, Kongs.
[5:41] Kongs, regarding po dito sa, ay, Kongjerville po, nag-increase from the number of 25 yun pong witnesses.
[5:49] Pwede pong malaman without saying or stating the details, ito po ba'y dahil dun sa panibagong ebedensya po na nakuha po ng House Prosecution Panel with regards dun sa undeclared wealth?
[6:00] It is because we recognize the rule that only those witnesses whose names were submitted during pre-trial will be allowed to testify during the trial.
[6:15] So if before we're trying to limit corroborative witnesses, we're selecting only the most important witnesses, we wanted to make sure that all testimony will be presented in court.
[6:30] And that is why we consider other witnesses whose testimony are likewise significant.
[6:37] I am not very much familiar with the, I understand it's the comment of Congressman Terry Ridon.
[6:45] Perhaps that includes also the witnesses that he is referring to in support of the allegations on unexplained wealth.
[6:56] Ang malinaw po dito, sa ilalim po ng ating rules, kapag ang testigo, hindi mo naisama ang pangalan dun sa pre-trial,
[7:05] Well, generally speaking, hindi po siya papayagang tumistigo during the trial.
[7:13] And that is why, as a matter of rule, lahat ng testigo ang isasalang mo, dapat yung pangalan isumiti mo during the pre-trial conference.
[7:22] And their names must be included in the pre-trial brief.
[7:25] Does it mean din po kung na determined na po yun pong mga bank officials na i-invite sa paglilitis?
[7:35] We have no communication with the bank officials, but since the proceeding in the Justice Committee,
[7:42] it has always been the intention of the House of Representatives to include the bank representatives
[7:49] and the bank documents among the evidence which will be presented by the prosecution team.
[7:56] If I may add, in the pre-trial brief, we are, while the general rule is that we have to list down all of the names of the witnesses
[8:10] that we will be presenting during trial, we are allowed to withhold certain names for security and safety purposes.
[8:22] There is also, there is also, we are also allowed to make a reservation of witnesses
[8:31] as long as we are able to give a description of the witness and the purpose for which they will be presented.
[8:42] So, regarding the bank officials, for example, it is possible that we will not yet say the names of these persons,
[8:52] but there will be a description of their position and or the purpose of their testimony.
[8:57] In addition, in fact, it applies not only to witnesses, it applies even to documents
[9:08] which are not yet available during the conduct of pre-trial.
[9:13] In simple terms, the parties are allowed to make a reservation in the pre-trial brief and during the pre-trial conference,
[9:22] provided we give a reasonable description of who this witness is, what will be the nature of the testimony,
[9:34] and what is the purpose to be achieved by presenting this witness.
[9:39] Reservation is allowed during the pre-trial, and the reason why it is being allowed is because of
[9:46] safety and security, that's one, in case of witnesses, and for documents, because they are not yet available.
[9:55] Last na lang po on my part, dun po ba sa motion din po na isusumiti po ng House Prosecution Panel,
[10:04] may anything about the issue on Senate leadership?
[10:09] Because I believe po, any motion, for example, to resolve kung sino ang presiding officer,
[10:16] because sabi niyo po kung Jervil, kung kayo po yung tatanungin, mas dapat pong magkaroon na ng
[10:23] Julie-elected Senate President, pero wala po kasing session ngayon, so hindi makakapag-elect ng Senate President.
[10:31] You were watching my interview.
[10:36] For the record, the House of Representatives already recognized the leadership of acting SP Wynn Gatchalian.
[10:44] As a matter of fact, we articulated already that we will be appearing before the impeachment court,
[10:53] initiated by acting SP Wynn Gatchalian, who nowadays is the one signing the notices in his capacity as presiding officer.
[11:02] I express that concern, because I understand that impeachment is a very sensitive matter.
[11:13] Why sensitive?
[11:14] You know what happened to the first impeachment back in the 19th Congress?
[11:19] We are of the humble position that we complied strictly.
[11:24] The requirements for the second mode of filing an impeachment complaint,
[11:29] and for transmitting the same to the Senate.
[11:31] That has been the general stand of the House of Representatives.
[11:36] But nonetheless, you know that later on, it was declared unconstitutional by the Honorable Supreme Court,
[11:42] regardless of our strong position.
[11:46] So, with that in mind, it is really my concern that I hope magkaroon na ng duly elected Senate President.
[11:56] If it is acting SP Wynn Gatchalian, well, we will welcome that.
[12:02] If it will be someone else, we will welcome that,
[12:05] because that is the judgment and prerogative of the members of the Senate.
[12:10] The reason is, we are apprehensive that we might encounter another constitutional issue,
[12:18] because we will be starting the trial, and there is no duly elected Senate President.
[12:25] That is, of course, while we recognize the leadership of elected Senate President pro tempore,
[12:35] and acting Senate President Wynn Gatchalian.
[12:39] Sana ma-address na yon para wala nang apprehension ng House
[12:44] about another possible constitutional issue to be raised in the Supreme Court.
[12:52] Just in addition to that, I think it's not only the integrity of the Senate that we're talking here.
[12:59] It's also for the purpose of providing clarity to the people.
[13:04] Because in the coming days, once the actual trial begins,
[13:07] we anticipate that there's going to be a huge investment in terms of the people watching the impeachment trial.
[13:15] So, for clarity and for the purpose of having a Senate without a leadership battle,
[13:24] it's our utmost understanding and plea, and if we can appeal,
[13:32] that the Senate would have a legitimate, uncontested leader for the purpose of clarity of the public.
[13:43] Clarification yun lang po, sorry.
[13:44] So, ayaw nyo pong mag-start ang impeachment trial unless ma-resolve yung issue sa Senate leadership?
[13:54] That is just an expression of our apprehension.
[13:58] But we submit, of course, to the jurisdiction of the impeachment court under the current leadership, no?
[14:04] Kung meron silang notices for hearing na, we will appear.
[14:08] That is just an expression of our apprehension that it will be best
[14:11] na magkaroon muna ng duly elected Senate President before we proceed to trial.
[14:16] No, I have no intention of formalizing that concern.
[14:30] Thank you, Rose.
[14:32] We go now to Haji Camino of Brigada News.
[14:41] Hi, Kongs. Good morning po.
[14:42] Follow up lang po dun sa plan or sa call na magkaroon ng translation sa iba't-ibang dialect.
[14:51] Paano po ito gagawin?
[14:52] Is it through the communities po ba?
[14:55] It will be held sa mga communities or sa mainstream media?
[14:59] Paano po ba yung magiging execution po na?
[15:01] I think that's an ongoing discussion that we're having with the comms team.
[15:09] Kasi what we intend to provide to the public is the widest information,
[15:15] easy to understand for the public, for our public.
[15:20] Kasi tama pa yung sinabi ni Chairperson Jinky na in the coming days,
[15:26] once the impeachment trial begins, the audience will be,
[15:32] we will be hearing technical legal terms that are not necessarily quite understandable,
[15:39] easily to understand by the public.
[15:41] So those are the things that we also want to explore.
[15:45] Ang intention po talaga natin dito is mabigyang servisyo ang ating mga kababayan
[15:50] na maintindihan nila ang pinag-uusapan sa impeachment trial
[15:55] dahil matagal na po ito pinag-uusapan at deserve po nila malaman ng katotohanan.
[16:03] At gano'n po kayo ka-confident kung na through these means
[16:07] or kumbaga way of communicating to the public,
[16:10] paano po siya makakatulong?
[16:11] Not just to secure conviction of course,
[16:14] but para po mas maipabatid sa taong bayan po yung kahalagahan ng impeachment process.
[16:20] Well, unang-una para sa kanila ito,
[16:21] kasi ang nagsasalita po dito ay ang ating Constitution.
[16:25] Ang Constitution, sinasabi naman po,
[16:28] parate po natin sinasabi,
[16:30] ng impeachment trial ay this is a constitutional duty given to the House
[16:35] to initiate and then for the Senate to try and decide.
[16:40] Nandun na po tayo dun sa posisyon kung saan ang Senado ay pag-uusapan in an open trial
[16:46] kung ano po yung mga allegations against the Vice President.
[16:50] Isa po ito, remember, this is going to be the first time that the sitting Vice President
[16:55] will be tried in an open court, in an impeachment court.
[16:58] First time po ito.
[16:59] So, this will also set the precedence in the coming years.
[17:03] Paano po ang ating mga kababayan,
[17:05] hindi lang po mamakita nila kung ano yung actual na trial,
[17:10] pero kung ano yung mga pinag-uusapan
[17:12] na naayon doon sa pinespelled out ng Constitution
[17:17] na mga violations na constituting an impeachable offense.
[17:22] So, para po maintindihan ng ating mga kababayan,
[17:25] as a form of educating also our public,
[17:28] not only to provide them the services
[17:30] via informing them accurate information
[17:35] that would be easily understood by them,
[17:38] but it was also educating them
[17:41] and what are the allegations
[17:42] and what are the possible violations
[17:44] that would constitute an impeachable offense
[17:47] for the appreciation of the coming generations.
[17:50] To Kong Jingqi and Kong Bel,
[17:55] Paano po kung halimbawang questionin ng defense team
[18:00] yung pagkakaroon po ng bagong ebidensya
[18:04] ng mga witnesses po natin?
[18:05] Kung baga, te-technical din po nila
[18:07] na wala naman daw po sa House Committee on Justice hearings po yun,
[18:11] kaya naman sa articles of impeachment.
[18:15] Well, we have said on many occasions
[18:19] that the evidence that we will be presenting
[18:23] are all either those that were in the articles,
[18:28] those that were presented
[18:29] during the Committee on Justice hearings,
[18:31] and all other relevant evidence
[18:33] that is, in fact, stated in the rules
[18:37] of the House of Representatives
[18:39] on impeachment proceedings.
[18:41] So, everything will be relevant,
[18:44] everything will be related
[18:45] to the allegations or the articles of impeachment.
[18:50] Now, we have our pre-trial brief
[18:53] that we will be submitting today.
[18:56] Nakalagay naman po lahat diyan
[18:57] except those that will be made
[19:02] under a reservation that we will make.
[19:06] But there will be at least a general description
[19:09] of all of the evidence that we will present.
[19:12] So, we follow the general rule
[19:15] that there will be no surprise witnesses
[19:17] or surprise evidence.
[19:18] We will lay out in our pre-trial brief
[19:22] all of the evidence that we will present
[19:26] or those with reservations
[19:28] that we are allowed to make anyway.
[19:34] Maliwanag ang nakasaad sa ating Constitution.
[19:38] The House of Representatives
[19:40] has exclusive power to initiate
[19:43] all impeachment cases.
[19:45] The Senate has exclusive power
[19:48] to try and decide all impeachment cases.
[19:51] And along those lines,
[19:54] binigyan ang kapangyarihan
[19:55] ang House of Representatives
[19:57] at ang Senado
[19:59] na maglatag ng rules
[20:01] regarding impeachment.
[20:03] It is very clear,
[20:05] both under the rules on impeachment of the House
[20:07] and the rules on impeachment of the Senate,
[20:11] that they can exercise compulsory process.
[20:14] This pertains to the issuance of subpoena
[20:18] and testificandum
[20:19] to compel witnesses to appear
[20:22] before the impeachment court
[20:23] and subpoena duces tecum,
[20:25] that is for the production of documents.
[20:28] So, regardless of the fact
[20:30] that the evidences were produced
[20:33] only during the trial,
[20:35] the position is
[20:36] that is very much sanctioned
[20:39] by the Constitution.
[20:40] The purpose of this compulsory process
[20:43] is to aid the Senate
[20:45] during the trial.
[20:47] The same way that the purpose
[20:48] of compulsory process
[20:50] in the Justice Committee
[20:51] is to aid the Committee
[20:53] in determining the existence
[20:55] or non-existence
[20:56] of probable cause.
[20:57] It is therefore very much
[20:59] legal, lawful, valid
[21:02] for both the House
[21:03] and the Senate
[21:04] to exercise this compulsory process
[21:08] for the production of documents
[21:10] and for compelling witnesses
[21:12] even when this evidence
[21:14] were not part of the impeachment complaint
[21:16] or the articles of impeachment.
[21:20] Last question na lang po.
[21:22] Sorry, sisingit ko lang po
[21:23] itong topic na to.
[21:24] Kasi in an interview po,
[21:25] si Mayor Benji Magalong
[21:27] was asked regarding
[21:29] may sinabi po siya na
[21:31] around 90, 9-0,
[21:34] 90% daw po ng
[21:35] members ng House of Representatives
[21:38] are corrupt
[21:38] dahil po sa
[21:40] kumbaga,
[21:42] part na daw po ng sistema,
[21:43] it's a way of system na daw po na
[21:46] kaya masasabing majority
[21:48] ng House members ay corrupt.
[21:49] Any reaction po to this?
[21:52] Thank you po.
[21:52] As public officers
[21:53] and public officials,
[21:55] you know,
[21:57] we carry responsibility
[21:58] when we speak about
[22:00] certain matters,
[22:02] no?
[22:02] Not only to give clarity
[22:03] to the public
[22:04] but with precision.
[22:05] When I say precision,
[22:06] it has to also be backed up
[22:08] by evidence,
[22:08] solid evidence,
[22:09] no?
[22:10] So,
[22:11] we cannot dismiss that
[22:13] because we also
[22:15] do welcome
[22:17] any effort
[22:18] from any sectors
[22:20] in our society
[22:21] to call for accountability.
[22:23] In fact,
[22:23] the House of Representatives
[22:24] has been standing
[22:26] on the principle
[22:28] of accountability.
[22:29] We've been doing
[22:29] a lot of committee hearings,
[22:31] we've been doing
[22:32] a lot of inquiries.
[22:33] In fact,
[22:33] the Committee on Justice
[22:34] is one of the examples
[22:36] by which we can say
[22:37] proudly
[22:38] that the House of Representatives
[22:40] call for accountability
[22:43] of public officials.
[22:44] But accountability
[22:45] also should be coupled
[22:47] with the observance
[22:49] of due process.
[22:51] Due process demands
[22:52] that any accusations
[22:54] made against anybody
[22:56] or any institution
[22:57] should be backed up
[22:58] by a concrete evidence.
[23:01] So,
[23:01] it is,
[23:02] to me,
[23:03] it is quite
[23:04] irresponsible
[23:06] and
[23:07] irresponsible
[23:10] and unfair
[23:11] to just
[23:12] brush the entire
[23:14] institution
[23:14] with single stroke
[23:16] and to say
[23:17] that 90%
[23:18] of the members
[23:18] are corrupt.
[23:20] What about those,
[23:22] you know,
[23:22] you should be judged
[23:23] based on our
[23:24] individual
[23:25] work.
[23:29] We should,
[23:29] there are 300 plus
[23:30] members
[23:31] of the House
[23:31] of Representatives.
[23:33] Each of us
[23:34] are directly voted
[23:35] by the people.
[23:37] And so we,
[23:37] I think it's also
[23:38] as a matter
[23:39] of due process
[23:39] because we're talking
[23:41] about accountability.
[23:43] It should,
[23:43] accountability
[23:44] cannot stand
[23:45] on its own
[23:45] without also
[23:46] complying
[23:47] with due process.
[23:48] So it is not
[23:49] quite fair
[23:50] to just sweep
[23:52] the entire House
[23:53] with one branding.
[23:56] These are,
[23:57] allegations such as this
[23:58] should be backed
[23:59] by hard
[24:00] and concrete evidence.
[24:02] So we,
[24:03] we welcome
[24:04] those people
[24:05] who are calling
[24:05] for accountability.
[24:07] But it should be
[24:08] precise
[24:08] and it should be
[24:09] targeted
[24:10] to a specific
[24:10] individual
[24:11] and not
[24:12] to destroy
[24:13] the entire
[24:14] reputation
[24:14] of the House
[24:15] which by the way
[24:16] as opposed
[24:17] to that statement
[24:18] the House
[24:19] has been
[24:20] standing
[24:21] with accountability.
[24:22] We've been
[24:22] doing a lot
[24:23] of work.
[24:24] We've been
[24:24] doing a lot
[24:25] of inquiries
[24:25] in order
[24:26] to sort out
[24:28] allegations
[24:29] of corruption.
[24:31] So to me,
[24:33] you know,
[24:34] we understand
[24:36] that the mayor
[24:38] is an advocate
[24:39] of corruption
[24:40] but as an
[24:40] he himself
[24:42] as an
[24:42] investigator
[24:43] he knows
[24:44] that such
[24:45] accusations
[24:45] should be
[24:46] backed up
[24:46] by evidences.
[24:50] Let me just
[24:51] add,
[24:52] if he has
[24:52] names,
[24:53] it's better
[24:53] to name names
[24:54] rather than
[24:55] to attack
[24:57] the entire
[24:57] institution.
[25:00] Sorry po,
[25:01] last na lang po,
[25:02] follow,
[25:02] I mean,
[25:03] nasingit ko lang din po,
[25:04] sorry po,
[25:04] last na lang po talaga.
[25:06] Tomorrow,
[25:07] meron pong
[25:07] Blue Ribbon Committee
[25:11] hearing
[25:11] na pangungunahan
[25:12] po ng group
[25:13] ni na
[25:13] Senator Alan
[25:15] Peter Quetano,
[25:16] Senator Marcoleta,
[25:18] pero hindi po
[25:19] sa Senate
[25:19] premises
[25:20] gagawin.
[25:20] I understand
[25:21] parang sa labas
[25:22] po yata
[25:23] ng Senado
[25:23] gagawin.
[25:24] Any reaction
[25:24] na po na
[25:25] siyempre
[25:26] leadership issues
[25:27] pa rin po,
[25:28] pero itutuloy
[25:28] pa rin po nila
[25:29] yung so-called
[25:31] Blue Ribbon
[25:32] Committee
[25:32] hearing po nila.
[25:33] Well,
[25:38] personally,
[25:39] this does not
[25:40] reflect the position
[25:41] of the
[25:42] House
[25:42] Prosecution
[25:43] team,
[25:43] but since
[25:44] you've mentioned
[25:45] about a separate
[25:46] investigation
[25:49] or continuing
[25:50] Blue Ribbon
[25:51] Committee,
[25:51] I don't think
[25:52] even within
[25:53] the Senate
[25:53] the current
[25:56] leadership
[25:58] now sanction
[25:59] this parallel
[26:00] Blue Ribbon
[26:00] investigation,
[26:02] it only validates
[26:04] our previous
[26:05] observation
[26:06] that this is
[26:08] just a PR
[26:09] stunt
[26:09] to divert
[26:11] the attention
[26:12] of the public
[26:13] from the issue
[26:14] of impeachment.
[26:15] Remember,
[26:16] the impeachment
[26:16] trial
[26:17] is a
[26:18] constitutionally
[26:19] mandated
[26:21] priority
[26:22] of the Senate
[26:23] right now.
[26:25] They have
[26:25] already convened
[26:26] as an impeachment
[26:27] court,
[26:28] and I think
[26:29] the people
[26:30] deserve
[26:30] clarity
[26:32] and closure
[26:34] on the subject
[26:35] matters
[26:35] that are being
[26:36] allegedly
[26:37] committed
[26:38] by the
[26:40] Vice President.
[26:40] so I think
[26:43] it's just
[26:44] a diversionary
[26:45] tactic,
[26:45] if you ask
[26:46] me,
[26:46] my humble
[26:47] observation
[26:48] to create
[26:49] a parallel
[26:49] issue
[26:51] that actually
[26:53] would in
[26:55] a way
[26:55] sway the
[26:58] attention
[26:59] of the
[26:59] public,
[27:00] but the
[27:01] public
[27:01] knows,
[27:02] and the
[27:03] public
[27:03] knows
[27:04] that the
[27:05] primordial
[27:06] concern now
[27:07] of the
[27:07] Senate,
[27:08] since they
[27:08] have already
[27:09] convened
[27:09] as an
[27:09] impeachment
[27:10] court,
[27:10] is to
[27:11] exercise
[27:12] their
[27:12] exclusive
[27:13] power
[27:13] granted
[27:13] to them
[27:14] by the
[27:14] Constitution,
[27:15] because no
[27:15] agency,
[27:16] no institution
[27:17] in the
[27:17] government
[27:18] has that
[27:19] exclusive
[27:20] power
[27:21] to
[27:21] proceed
[27:23] with the
[27:24] impeachment
[27:25] trial
[27:25] than the
[27:26] Senate.
[27:26] So this
[27:27] is the
[27:27] priority
[27:28] of the
[27:28] Senate,
[27:29] and the
[27:29] people
[27:30] know
[27:30] that this
[27:30] is the
[27:31] priority
[27:31] of the
[27:31] Senate,
[27:31] and
[27:32] deserves
[27:32] to know
[27:32] the
[27:32] truth,
[27:33] and for
[27:33] a speedy
[27:34] trial
[27:34] also.
[27:35] So again,
[27:37] going back
[27:37] to that
[27:38] issue,
[27:38] just to
[27:38] give you
[27:39] a short
[27:40] answer,
[27:40] it only
[27:41] reinforces
[27:42] our
[27:42] earlier
[27:43] observation
[27:43] that this
[27:44] is just
[27:44] a
[27:44] distraction,
[27:46] a
[27:46] diversionary
[27:47] tactic,
[27:48] and a
[27:48] PR
[27:48] stand.
[27:49] If I
[27:50] may
[27:50] add,
[27:53] the
[27:53] prosecutors
[27:54] will not
[27:55] muddle
[27:55] ourselves,
[27:57] muddle
[27:57] our time
[27:58] with the
[28:00] Senate
[28:00] leadership
[28:00] issues.
[28:03] But we
[28:04] recognize
[28:05] the
[28:06] leadership
[28:06] of
[28:07] Senate
[28:08] President
[28:09] Pro
[28:09] Temporary
[28:09] Gatchalian,
[28:10] as this
[28:11] has been
[28:11] recognized
[28:12] by
[28:12] Malacanang,
[28:14] by all
[28:14] law
[28:15] schools,
[28:15] by law
[28:16] professors,
[28:17] justices of
[28:18] the Supreme
[28:18] Court.
[28:19] And there
[28:20] is every
[28:20] reason to
[28:21] believe the
[28:23] interpretation
[28:26] of the
[28:27] Evelino
[28:27] versus
[28:28] Cuenco
[28:28] doctrine.
[28:30] So as
[28:31] of the
[28:32] moment,
[28:32] we have
[28:32] been following
[28:33] the
[28:35] leadership
[28:35] of
[28:36] Senator
[28:37] Gatchalian,
[28:37] and we
[28:39] are,
[28:39] in fact,
[28:40] we
[28:40] submitted
[28:41] our
[28:42] pleadings
[28:43] before
[28:43] the
[28:44] impeachment
[28:45] court
[28:45] under
[28:45] his
[28:46] leadership.
[28:47] Thus,
[28:48] while we
[28:52] recognize
[28:53] that it
[28:54] is within
[28:55] their
[28:55] right to
[28:56] hold
[28:56] such
[28:57] meetings
[28:59] outside
[29:00] the
[29:01] Senate,
[29:02] they may
[29:03] do so,
[29:04] of course,
[29:04] but then,
[29:05] again,
[29:06] we follow
[29:06] the leadership
[29:07] of Senator
[29:07] Gatchalian.
[29:10] If I
[29:11] may add,
[29:14] yung
[29:15] gagawin
[29:16] perhaps
[29:16] you can
[29:17] charge
[29:17] that
[29:17] to
[29:18] freedom
[29:18] of
[29:18] expression,
[29:20] but in
[29:21] as far
[29:21] as
[29:21] legitimate
[29:22] inquiry
[29:23] and aid
[29:23] of
[29:23] legislation
[29:24] is
[29:24] concerned,
[29:25] let us
[29:26] remember
[29:26] that we
[29:28] have
[29:28] the
[29:28] new
[29:29] leadership
[29:29] in
[29:29] the
[29:29] Senate.
[29:31] Everything
[29:31] that
[29:31] they
[29:32] should
[29:32] do
[29:32] in
[29:33] order
[29:33] that
[29:34] it
[29:34] will
[29:34] fall
[29:35] within
[29:35] the
[29:35] purview
[29:36] of
[29:37] a
[29:37] Senate
[29:37] inquiry
[29:38] in
[29:38] aid
[29:38] of
[29:38] legislation,
[29:39] it
[29:39] must
[29:39] be
[29:40] sanctioned
[29:41] by
[29:41] the
[29:41] leadership.
[29:42] Nonetheless,
[29:43] with
[29:43] all due
[29:44] respect
[29:44] sa
[29:44] kanila,
[29:46] it
[29:46] is
[29:46] a
[29:46] legitimate
[29:46] exercise
[29:47] of
[29:47] freedom
[29:48] of
[29:48] expression.
[29:54] Thank you.
[29:54] Haji,
[29:55] we now
[29:55] recognize
[29:56] Annalisa
[29:56] Verano
[29:57] of
[29:57] Bombo
[29:58] Radio.
[30:01] Good
[30:02] morning
[30:02] Congressman,
[30:04] Representative
[30:05] Gerville
[30:05] Luistro
[30:06] po,
[30:06] kung
[30:06] kahit
[30:07] sino
[30:07] po
[30:07] sa
[30:07] inyong
[30:07] tatlo.
[30:08] Ma'am,
[30:09] bukod
[30:09] po sa
[30:10] naging
[30:10] itong
[30:12] evidencia
[30:12] na binanggit
[30:13] ni
[30:14] Representative
[30:15] Terry
[30:15] Ridon,
[30:16] can
[30:16] you tell
[30:17] the
[30:17] public
[30:17] today
[30:18] whether
[30:18] there
[30:19] is
[30:19] a
[30:19] piece
[30:20] of
[30:20] evidence
[30:20] in
[30:21] your
[30:21] possession
[30:21] that
[30:22] has
[30:23] not
[30:23] yet
[30:23] been
[30:24] publicly
[30:24] disclosed
[30:25] and
[30:26] that
[30:26] you
[30:26] believe
[30:27] could
[30:27] significantly
[30:28] affect
[30:28] the
[30:28] outcome
[30:29] of
[30:29] the
[30:29] trial.
[30:29] The
[30:31] list
[30:31] I
[30:31] can
[30:31] say
[30:32] is
[30:32] the
[30:33] bank
[30:37] documents
[30:38] which
[30:41] even
[30:41] us
[30:42] we
[30:43] do
[30:43] not
[30:43] have
[30:43] them
[30:43] yet
[30:44] in
[30:44] our
[30:44] possession
[30:45] So
[30:46] during
[30:46] the
[30:46] trial
[30:47] upon
[30:48] the
[30:48] sub
[30:48] pina
[30:49] issued
[30:49] by
[30:50] the
[30:50] impeachment
[30:50] court
[30:51] the
[30:52] prosecutors
[30:53] together
[30:54] with
[30:54] the
[30:55] other
[30:55] party
[30:55] and
[30:56] the
[30:56] Filipino
[30:56] people
[30:57] together
[30:58] we
[30:58] will
[30:58] be
[30:58] witnessing
[30:59] what
[31:00] bank
[31:01] representatives
[31:02] along
[31:03] with
[31:03] the
[31:03] bank
[31:03] documents
[31:04] surprise
[31:05] in the
[31:11] sense
[31:11] that
[31:11] you
[31:11] can't
[31:11] get
[31:12] it
[31:12] but
[31:13] of
[31:13] course
[31:13] that's
[31:13] part of
[31:14] our
[31:14] list
[31:14] of
[31:15] documents
[31:15] to be
[31:16] marked
[31:16] reservation
[31:19] of
[31:20] documents
[31:21] to be
[31:21] marked
[31:22] because
[31:22] they
[31:22] are
[31:22] not
[31:22] yet
[31:23] available
[31:23] as
[31:24] of
[31:24] the
[31:24] moment
[31:24] that's
[31:25] part
[31:25] of
[31:26] the
[31:26] list
[31:26] of
[31:26] documents
[31:27] to be
[31:27] reserved
[31:28] in our
[31:28] pre-trial
[31:29] brief
[31:29] but
[31:30] surprise
[31:30] in the
[31:31] sense
[31:31] that
[31:31] even
[31:31] us
[31:32] we
[31:32] have
[31:32] not
[31:33] seen
[31:33] yet
[31:33] the
[31:34] bank
[31:34] documents
[31:35] and
[31:35] we
[31:35] have
[31:35] not
[31:35] heard
[31:36] yet
[31:36] the
[31:37] bank
[31:37] representatives
[31:38] follow
[31:39] up
[31:40] in
[31:41] pre-trial
[31:41] remain
[31:42] close
[31:43] the
[31:43] media
[31:43] so
[31:44] what
[31:44] information
[31:45] will
[31:46] you
[31:46] commit
[31:46] to
[31:47] disclosing
[31:47] afterwards
[31:48] so
[31:48] the
[31:48] public
[31:48] can
[31:49] follow
[31:49] the
[31:49] proceedings
[31:50] that's
[31:51] one
[31:51] of
[31:51] my
[31:52] list
[31:53] of
[31:53] concerns
[31:54] which
[31:54] I
[31:54] will
[31:54] articulate
[31:55] during
[31:56] our
[31:56] pre-trial
[31:57] conference
[31:57] one
[31:59] is
[31:59] the
[31:59] possibility
[32:00] of
[32:00] sharing
[32:01] what
[32:01] is
[32:01] happening
[32:01] with
[32:02] the
[32:02] media
[32:02] after
[32:03] all
[32:03] this
[32:03] is
[32:04] part
[32:04] of
[32:04] the
[32:04] constitutional
[32:05] process
[32:05] of
[32:06] the
[32:06] impeachment
[32:06] trial
[32:07] no
[32:07] second
[32:08] you
[32:08] know
[32:09] get
[32:09] khani
[32:09] nung
[32:09] open
[32:10] rule
[32:10] whether
[32:11] it
[32:11] will
[32:12] be
[32:12] adopted
[32:12] or
[32:13] otherwise
[32:13] by
[32:14] open
[32:14] rule
[32:15] it
[32:17] even
[32:17] matters
[32:17] which
[32:18] are
[32:18] outside
[32:19] the
[32:19] direct
[32:20] and
[32:20] the
[32:20] cross
[32:21] may
[32:21] be
[32:21] raised
[32:22] during
[32:22] the
[32:23] direct
[32:23] and
[32:24] redirect
[32:24] may
[32:25] be
[32:25] raised
[32:26] during
[32:26] cross
[32:27] and
[32:27] recross
[32:28] no
[32:29] and
[32:30] then
[32:30] the
[32:31] dialect
[32:31] translation
[32:32] to
[32:33] as
[32:33] many
[32:33] dialects
[32:33] as
[32:34] possible
[32:34] and
[32:35] then
[32:38] the
[32:38] possibility
[32:39] of
[32:39] formalizing
[32:41] that
[32:42] the
[32:43] parties
[32:43] can
[32:43] actually
[32:44] use
[32:45] Filipino
[32:45] during
[32:46] the
[32:46] trial
[32:46] that
[32:47] is
[32:47] for
[32:47] the
[32:47] better
[32:47] understanding
[32:48] also
[32:48] of
[32:48] our
[32:49] countrymen
[32:49] and
[32:51] one
[32:51] more
[32:51] thing
[32:52] that
[32:52] I
[32:52] did
[32:52] not
[32:52] mention
[32:53] canina
[32:53] we wish
[32:55] to
[32:55] invoke
[32:56] the
[32:56] policy
[32:57] of
[32:57] substance
[32:58] over
[32:58] technicalities
[33:00] because
[33:01] again
[33:01] this is
[33:02] not a
[33:02] purely
[33:02] legal
[33:03] process
[33:03] and
[33:04] therefore
[33:07] evidence
[33:08] should be
[33:09] presented
[33:09] all of
[33:10] them
[33:10] and
[33:11] should
[33:11] not
[33:12] be
[33:12] challenged
[33:12] always
[33:13] on
[33:13] technical
[33:14] grounds
[33:14] substance
[33:15] over
[33:16] technicalities
[33:16] so
[33:18] these
[33:18] are
[33:18] the
[33:18] concerns
[33:19] that
[33:19] we
[33:19] will
[33:19] be
[33:20] raising
[33:20] the
[33:20] possibility
[33:22] of
[33:22] you
[33:22] the
[33:23] media
[33:23] people
[33:24] from
[33:25] being
[33:25] allowed
[33:25] in
[33:26] the
[33:26] pretrial
[33:26] conference
[33:27] but
[33:27] of
[33:27] course
[33:27] this
[33:28] will
[33:28] be
[33:28] the
[33:29] judgment
[33:30] of
[33:30] the
[33:30] impeachment
[33:30] court
[33:31] we
[33:32] can
[33:32] pronounce
[33:34] but
[33:35] at
[33:35] the
[33:35] end
[33:36] of
[33:36] the
[33:36] day
[33:36] whatever
[33:37] will
[33:37] be
[33:37] the
[33:37] decision
[33:38] of
[33:38] the
[33:38] impeachment
[33:38] court
[33:39] coming
[33:40] prosecutors
[33:41] and
[33:41] even
[33:42] the
[33:42] media
[33:42] people
[33:42] we
[33:43] will
[33:43] have
[33:43] to
[33:43] submit
[33:43] to
[33:44] their
[33:44] jurisdiction
[33:44] and
[33:45] authority
[33:45] do
[33:45] you
[33:48] believe
[33:49] that
[33:49] this
[33:49] close
[33:49] door
[33:50] pretrial
[33:50] helps
[33:51] or
[33:51] hurt
[33:52] public
[33:53] confidence
[33:53] in
[33:53] the
[33:54] impeachment
[33:54] process
[33:54] just a
[33:55] reaction
[33:56] don't
[33:56] don't
[33:57] mention
[33:57] the
[33:58] media
[33:59] is
[34:00] not
[34:00] allowed
[34:01] to
[34:01] pretrial
[34:01] conference
[34:02] you
[34:02] know
[34:02] why
[34:02] this
[34:03] is
[34:03] like
[34:04] a
[34:04] meeting
[34:04] no
[34:05] and
[34:06] this
[34:06] is
[34:06] very
[34:07] time
[34:08] consuming
[34:08] because
[34:10] the
[34:10] parties
[34:11] will
[34:11] be
[34:11] discussing
[34:12] each
[34:13] and
[34:13] every
[34:14] offer
[34:15] of
[34:15] stipulation
[34:16] and
[34:17] and
[34:17] and
[34:17] we
[34:18] have
[34:19] to
[34:19] wait
[34:19] to
[34:19] hear
[34:20] the
[34:20] defense
[34:21] admitted
[34:22] or
[34:22] denied
[34:22] same
[34:23] thing
[34:23] when
[34:24] they
[34:24] have
[34:25] the
[34:26] offer
[34:27] of
[34:27] stipulation
[34:28] and
[34:28] we
[34:29] will
[34:29] answer
[34:29] and
[34:31] then
[34:31] with
[34:32] regards
[34:32] to
[34:33] the
[34:33] documents
[34:34] there's
[34:34] a
[34:34] possibility
[34:35] that
[34:35] there's
[34:35] a
[34:35] marking
[34:36] and
[34:36] this
[34:37] will
[34:37] take
[34:37] so
[34:37] much
[34:38] time
[34:38] by
[34:40] the
[34:41] time
[34:41] that
[34:41] pre-trial
[34:42] order
[34:43] will
[34:43] be
[34:48] manifested
[34:48] by
[34:49] both
[34:50] parties
[34:50] if
[34:51] any
[34:51] stipulations
[34:52] of
[34:52] prosecution
[34:53] that
[34:54] in
[34:54] admit
[34:54] defense
[34:56] we
[34:57] will
[34:57] manifest
[34:57] that
[34:57] during
[34:58] the
[34:58] pre-trial
[34:59] same
[34:59] is
[35:00] true
[35:00] with
[35:00] respect
[35:00] to
[35:00] the
[35:01] defense
[35:01] doon
[35:02] stipulation
[35:02] of
[35:03] facts
[35:03] that
[35:03] in
[35:03] admit
[35:03] prosecution
[35:04] even
[35:05] the
[35:05] list
[35:06] of
[35:06] our
[35:06] witnesses
[35:07] we
[35:09] will
[35:10] be
[35:10] manifesting
[35:10] this
[35:11] during
[35:11] the
[35:11] pre-trial
[35:11] and
[35:12] all
[35:12] the
[35:12] documents
[35:13] mark
[35:14] or
[35:14] to
[35:14] be
[35:14] marked
[35:14] will
[35:15] be
[35:15] manifested
[35:15] as
[35:15] well
[35:16] not
[35:16] only
[35:17] by
[35:17] the
[35:17] prosecution
[35:17] but
[35:18] also
[35:19] by
[35:19] the
[35:19] defense
[35:19] in
[35:20] other
[35:20] words
[35:21] during
[35:25] the
[35:26] pre-trial
[35:26] conference
[35:27] manifest
[35:28] during
[35:29] the
[35:30] pre-trial
[35:30] proper
[35:31] that
[35:32] is
[35:32] before
[35:33] the
[35:33] issuance
[35:33] of
[35:33] the
[35:34] pre-trial
[35:34] order
[35:35] to
[35:39] add
[35:40] to
[35:40] that
[35:40] you
[35:41] will
[35:41] not
[35:41] be
[35:41] missing
[35:42] actually
[35:42] anything
[35:43] because
[35:44] all
[35:44] of
[35:44] the
[35:44] conference
[35:46] are
[35:47] manifest
[35:47] by
[35:47] two
[35:48] parties
[35:49] and
[35:49] even
[35:49] the
[35:49] impeachment
[35:50] court
[35:51] when
[35:51] pre-trial
[35:52] proper
[35:53] that's
[35:54] prior
[35:54] to
[35:54] the
[35:54] issuance
[35:55] of
[35:55] the
[35:55] pre-trial
[35:55] order
[35:56] thank you
[35:59] Annalie
[35:59] we now
[36:00] call on
[36:00] Eden
[36:01] Santos
[36:01] from
[36:02] Net
[36:03] 25
[36:03] we
[36:23] are not
[36:23] afraid
[36:24] in fact
[36:25] that
[36:25] directive
[36:26] came
[36:27] from
[36:27] the
[36:27] impeachment
[36:28] court
[36:28] it
[36:29] did
[36:29] not
[36:29] came
[36:29] from
[36:29] us
[36:30] notice
[36:33] for
[36:33] pre-trial
[36:35] conference
[36:35] and
[36:36] for
[36:36] the
[36:37] deadline
[36:37] of
[36:37] pre-trial
[36:38] brief
[36:38] as a
[36:39] matter
[36:40] of
[36:40] fact
[36:40] if
[36:40] the
[36:40] impeachment
[36:41] court
[36:41] will
[36:41] allow
[36:42] the
[36:43] media
[36:43] people
[36:44] during
[36:44] conference
[36:45] we
[36:45] will
[36:45] welcome
[36:45] that
[36:46] no
[36:47] but
[36:47] of
[36:49] course
[36:49] that
[36:49] is
[36:49] not
[36:50] because
[36:50] they
[36:51] are
[36:52] against
[36:52] transparency
[36:53] they
[36:54] are
[36:54] in
[36:54] favor
[36:55] of
[36:55] transparency
[36:56] as a
[36:56] matter
[36:57] of
[36:57] fact
[36:57] that
[36:57] is
[36:57] the
[36:58] very
[36:58] reason
[36:58] combat
[36:59] it
[36:59] may
[36:59] impeachment
[37:00] trial
[37:00] I
[37:01] think
[37:01] the
[37:01] reason
[37:01] is
[37:02] expediency
[37:02] because
[37:03] it may take
[37:08] two to
[37:08] three
[37:08] days
[37:09] and
[37:09] even
[37:09] more
[37:10] very
[37:11] technical
[37:12] in the
[37:13] sense
[37:13] that
[37:14] we
[37:15] want
[37:16] to
[37:17] take
[37:17] trial
[37:18] which
[37:18] ultimately
[37:19] you
[37:19] will
[37:19] see
[37:20] during
[37:21] pre-trial
[37:22] and
[37:22] trial
[37:23] proper
[37:23] so
[37:24] there is
[37:25] no
[37:25] issue
[37:25] of
[37:25] transparency
[37:26] here
[37:26] the
[37:27] issue
[37:28] is
[37:28] expediency
[37:29] definitely
[37:30] the impeachment
[37:31] court
[37:32] is for
[37:32] the
[37:32] transparency
[37:33] and
[37:34] that
[37:34] is
[37:34] the
[37:34] reason
[37:34] why
[37:34] we
[37:35] will
[37:35] be
[37:35] holding
[37:35] this
[37:36] impeachment
[37:36] trial
[37:36] it
[37:44] was
[37:45] written
[37:45] in the
[37:46] notice
[37:46] of
[37:47] pre-trial
[37:47] conference
[37:48] it
[37:49] will
[37:50] not
[37:51] be
[37:51] open
[37:53] to
[37:53] the
[37:54] media
[37:54] but
[37:55] like
[37:57] I
[37:57] said
[37:57] in a
[37:58] previous
[37:58] interview
[37:59] we
[38:00] in fact
[38:00] want
[38:02] as
[38:03] prosecutors
[38:03] in fact
[38:03] wanted
[38:04] to be
[38:04] televised
[38:05] I
[38:05] think
[38:06] the
[38:06] reason
[38:06] behind
[38:07] it
[38:07] not
[38:07] being
[38:07] televised
[38:08] is
[38:08] that
[38:09] the
[38:10] impeachment
[38:10] court
[38:11] thinks
[38:11] that
[38:12] this
[38:12] will
[38:12] be
[38:12] too
[38:13] tedious
[38:13] too
[38:14] boring
[38:14] for
[38:15] people
[38:15] to
[38:15] watch
[38:16] ganito
[38:17] po
[38:17] ang
[38:17] mangyayari
[38:18] sa
[38:18] pre-trial
[38:19] conference
[38:20] kunyari
[38:23] babasahin
[38:24] ang pangalan
[38:24] ng isang
[38:25] ebidensya
[38:26] sasabihin
[38:27] we will
[38:27] mark
[38:28] that
[38:28] as
[38:28] our
[38:29] exhibit
[38:29] A
[38:30] our
[38:31] exhibit
[38:31] A-1
[38:33] A-111
[38:35] ganun po
[38:36] napakahaba
[38:37] po
[38:37] yan
[38:37] and I
[38:38] think
[38:38] the
[38:39] impeachment
[38:40] court
[38:40] just wants
[38:41] to
[38:41] avoid
[38:44] the
[38:45] to
[38:46] spare
[38:46] the
[38:47] people
[38:47] this
[38:48] boring
[38:49] process
[38:51] but in
[38:51] any
[38:52] case
[38:52] everything
[38:53] will be
[38:54] written
[38:54] in
[38:55] or
[38:56] summarized
[38:56] in a
[38:57] pretrial
[38:57] order
[38:58] that
[38:58] the
[38:59] impeachment
[39:00] court
[39:00] will
[39:01] come out
[39:02] with
[39:02] so
[39:03] hintayin
[39:03] po
[39:03] natin
[39:04] ang
[39:04] pretrial
[39:04] order
[39:05] na
[39:05] ilalabas
[39:05] po
[39:06] ng
[39:06] impeachment
[39:06] court
[39:07] just to
[39:10] assuage
[39:10] the
[39:10] fear
[39:11] of
[39:11] some
[39:12] number
[39:12] one
[39:12] that's
[39:12] correct
[39:13] it's
[39:13] the
[39:14] call
[39:15] of
[39:15] the
[39:15] impeachment
[39:15] court
[39:16] the
[39:16] honorable
[39:16] impeachment
[39:17] court
[39:17] kung paano
[39:18] magiging
[39:19] procedure
[39:19] sa
[39:19] pretrial
[39:20] number
[39:21] two
[39:21] if
[39:21] for
[39:22] example
[39:22] in
[39:23] a matter
[39:24] of
[39:24] transparency
[39:25] if
[39:28] without
[39:29] for
[39:29] example
[39:29] the
[39:30] without
[39:31] the
[39:32] court's
[39:32] direct
[39:33] order
[39:33] to
[39:33] disallow
[39:34] the
[39:35] prosecution
[39:35] to
[39:36] discuss
[39:36] for
[39:37] example
[39:37] after
[39:37] the
[39:37] pretrial
[39:38] conference
[39:39] what
[39:39] transpired
[39:40] during
[39:41] the
[39:41] pretrial
[39:44] eh
[39:44] andito
[39:45] naman
[39:45] pong
[39:45] lead
[39:46] prosecutors
[39:46] lead
[39:48] prosecutor
[39:48] atsaka
[39:49] mga
[39:49] prosecutors
[39:49] namin
[39:50] na
[39:51] ibahagi
[39:52] sa
[39:53] publiko
[39:53] kung
[39:54] ano
[39:54] yung
[39:54] napag
[39:55] usapan
[39:55] sa
[39:56] pretrial
[39:57] conference
[39:58] without
[39:59] necessarily
[40:00] going
[40:00] into
[40:01] specific
[40:01] details
[40:02] so
[40:02] generally
[40:03] the
[40:04] house
[40:05] prosecution
[40:06] team
[40:06] would
[40:07] even
[40:07] ready
[40:08] to
[40:09] inform
[40:09] the
[40:10] public
[40:10] what
[40:10] transpired
[40:11] during
[40:12] the
[40:13] pretrial
[40:13] conference
[40:14] give
[40:16] assuming
[40:16] for
[40:17] example
[40:17] that
[40:17] there
[40:17] is
[40:18] no
[40:18] direct
[40:18] directive
[40:21] from
[40:21] the
[40:22] impeachment
[40:23] court
[40:23] not to
[40:24] divulge
[40:25] the
[40:25] information
[40:27] what
[40:27] transpired
[40:28] so
[40:28] ready
[40:29] to
[40:30] share
[40:33] to
[40:33] the
[40:33] public
[40:34] may
[40:34] bahagi
[40:34] sa
[40:34] publiko
[40:35] kung
[40:35] anuman
[40:36] yung
[40:36] mapag
[40:36] usapan
[40:37] ano
[40:38] yung
[40:38] mga
[40:38] naagrihan
[40:39] doon
[40:39] ano
[40:39] yung
[40:40] kinontest
[40:41] mga
[40:42] evidensya
[40:43] anong
[40:43] inaccept
[40:44] based
[40:45] on
[40:45] the
[40:45] stipulation
[40:46] of
[40:46] facts
[40:47] so
[40:47] ganun
[40:47] lang
[40:47] po
[40:47] so
[40:48] do not
[40:48] be
[40:48] fearful
[40:49] about
[40:49] you know
[40:51] throwing
[40:52] a
[40:52] dark
[40:53] blanket
[40:53] for
[40:53] the
[40:54] public
[40:54] not
[40:54] to
[40:55] be
[40:55] able
[40:55] to
[40:55] understand
[40:56] but
[40:56] later
[40:57] on
[40:57] I'm sure
[40:58] the
[40:59] house
[40:59] prosecution
[40:59] team
[41:00] will
[41:01] provide
[41:01] the
[41:01] public
[41:02] the
[41:02] necessary
[41:02] information
[41:03] that
[41:03] they
[41:03] need
[41:04] nakalagay
[41:16] na po
[41:17] yun
[41:17] sa notice
[41:17] sa
[41:18] pretrial
[41:18] conference
[41:19] so
[41:19] hindi
[41:19] po
[41:19] para
[41:20] kami
[41:20] ay
[41:20] tumutol
[41:21] sa
[41:21] isang
[41:21] notice
[41:22] na
[41:22] nilabas
[41:23] po
[41:23] ng
[41:23] impeachment
[41:23] court
[41:24] ang
[42:18] bibigyan
[42:19] lang
[42:19] kita
[42:19] na
[42:19] what
[42:20] I
[42:20] can
[42:20] assure
[42:20] the
[42:21] public
[42:21] with
[42:21] all
[42:21] due
[42:22] respect
[42:22] to
[42:22] the
[42:22] lead
[42:23] prosecutor
[42:23] and
[42:23] prosecutor
[42:24] do
[42:26] not
[42:26] fear
[42:26] of
[42:26] conaibans
[42:27] just
[42:28] to
[42:28] go
[42:28] straight
[42:29] to
[42:29] your
[42:29] point
[42:29] ma'am
[42:30] wala
[42:30] pong
[42:30] conaibans
[42:31] dito
[42:31] di
[42:32] po
[42:32] mangyayari
[42:33] yan
[42:33] nandun
[42:35] din
[42:36] po
[42:36] ang
[42:36] depensa
[42:36] so
[42:38] at
[42:39] tsaka
[42:39] ang
[42:40] korte
[42:41] po
[42:41] ang
[42:41] honorable
[42:41] impeachment
[42:42] court
[42:42] po
[42:43] ang
[42:43] nagbibigay
[42:43] ng
[42:43] notice
[42:44] tayo
[42:44] po
[42:44] nagko
[42:45] comply
[42:45] po
[42:45] ang
[42:46] ating
[42:46] mga
[42:46] prosecution
[42:47] team
[42:48] dun
[42:48] po
[42:48] sa
[42:48] direktiba
[42:49] ng
[42:50] impeachment
[42:50] court
[42:51] para
[42:52] mas
[42:52] mapabilis
[42:53] mas
[42:53] mas
[42:53] simplify
[42:54] yung
[42:55] pag-usapan
[42:55] sa
[42:55] korte
[42:56] kasi
[42:57] deserve
[42:57] din po
[42:58] ni
[42:58] vice
[42:59] president
[42:59] sara
[42:59] doterte
[43:00] ang
[43:00] speedy
[43:01] trial
[43:02] kaya
[43:03] sinisimplify
[43:03] po
[43:04] natin
[43:05] during
[43:06] the
[43:06] pre-trial
[43:06] conference
[43:07] yung
[43:07] pag-usapan
[43:08] sa
[43:08] actual
[43:09] trial
[43:09] so
[43:10] just
[43:10] to
[43:10] give
[43:10] you
[43:10] a
[43:10] direct
[43:11] and
[43:11] you
[43:11] can
[43:12] quote
[43:12] me
[43:12] on
[43:12] this
[43:12] there
[43:13] will
[43:13] be
[43:13] no
[43:13] connivance
[43:14] because
[43:14] the
[43:14] defense
[43:15] team
[43:15] will
[43:15] also
[43:16] be
[43:16] there
[43:16] I
[43:19] just
[43:19] want
[43:20] to
[43:20] state
[43:20] for
[43:20] the
[43:20] record
[43:21] we
[43:22] are
[43:22] not
[43:22] against
[43:23] making
[43:24] the
[43:25] pre-trial
[43:26] conference
[43:26] open
[43:27] to
[43:27] public
[43:28] as a
[43:28] matter
[43:29] of
[43:29] fact
[43:29] we
[43:29] are
[43:30] in
[43:30] support
[43:30] of
[43:31] that
[43:31] however
[43:32] please
[43:33] understand
[43:34] in
[43:35] matters
[43:35] concerning
[43:36] the
[43:36] conduct
[43:36] of
[43:37] the
[43:37] trial
[43:37] the
[43:38] authority
[43:39] belongs
[43:40] to
[43:40] the
[43:40] impeachment
[43:40] court
[43:41] our
[43:42] obligation
[43:42] is
[43:43] to
[43:43] obey
[43:44] the
[43:44] impeachment
[43:45] court
[43:45] and
[43:47] lastly
[43:48] in
[43:49] relation
[43:49] to
[43:49] that
[43:49] prosecutors
[43:51] are
[43:52] lawyers
[43:52] and
[43:53] we
[43:54] as
[43:54] lawyers
[43:55] are
[43:55] officers
[43:56] of
[43:56] the
[43:56] court
[43:56] and
[43:58] this
[43:58] includes
[43:58] their
[44:09] directive
[44:10] that
[44:11] the
[44:12] pre-trial
[44:13] conference
[44:14] will be
[44:14] closed
[44:15] to
[44:15] media
[44:16] then
[44:17] we
[44:17] all
[44:18] will
[44:18] obey
[44:19] the
[44:20] impeachment
[44:21] court
[44:21] as
[44:21] officers
[44:22] of
[44:22] the
[44:22] court
[44:22] some
[44:37] supreme
[44:37] court
[44:37] justices
[44:38] luminaries
[44:41] yes
[44:41] luminaries
[44:42] supreme
[44:43] court
[44:43] justices
[44:44] said
[44:44] that
[44:45] the
[44:47] Avelino
[44:48] versus
[44:48] Cuenco
[44:48] ruling
[44:49] stands
[44:50] I did
[44:51] not say
[44:51] that it
[44:52] is the
[44:52] supreme
[44:52] court
[44:53] as an
[44:53] institution
[44:54] there's
[45:04] a
[45:05] pending
[45:05] petition
[45:06] but
[45:07] there's
[45:08] no
[45:08] judgment
[45:10] on that
[45:10] wait
[45:12] that
[45:12] petition
[45:13] has been
[45:13] resolved
[45:13] already
[45:14] and
[45:15] sabi
[45:15] ng
[45:16] supreme
[45:16] court
[45:17] that
[45:17] issue
[45:18] on
[45:18] leadership
[45:18] is
[45:20] a
[45:21] non-justiciable
[45:22] issue
[45:22] because
[45:23] it concerns
[45:23] a political
[45:24] question
[45:25] so
[45:25] ito
[45:26] ito yung
[45:26] tinatawag
[45:27] natin
[45:27] doctrine
[45:28] of
[45:28] political
[45:28] question
[45:29] when it
[45:31] concerns
[45:31] the power
[45:32] of the
[45:32] agency
[45:33] which is
[45:33] exclusive
[45:33] to them
[45:34] the
[45:35] supreme
[45:35] court
[45:35] will not
[45:36] intervene
[45:36] that's
[45:37] how they
[45:37] resolved
[45:38] the
[45:38] petition
[45:38] before
[45:39] the
[45:39] supreme
[45:39] court
[45:39] so
[45:39] it's
[45:40] resolved
[45:40] already
[45:40] it was
[45:41] also
[45:42] denied
[45:43] based
[45:43] on
[45:44] the
[45:44] lack
[45:44] of
[45:44] standing
[45:45] if
[45:45] i'm
[45:45] not
[45:46] mistaken
[45:46] lack
[45:47] of
[45:47] legal
[45:48] standing
[45:49] of
[45:49] the
[45:50] petitioner
[45:51] and
[45:51] in
[45:52] addition
[45:52] to that
[45:53] ma'am
[45:53] no
[45:53] in
[45:53] addition
[45:53] to that
[45:54] it's
[45:54] not
[45:54] even
[45:55] the
[45:55] house
[45:56] of
[45:56] representative
[45:56] recognizing
[45:57] the
[45:58] election
[45:59] of
[45:59] senator
[46:00] as
[46:01] speaker
[46:02] potemp
[46:02] or other
[46:03] legal
[46:03] luminaries
[46:04] members of
[46:05] the
[46:05] supreme
[46:06] court
[46:06] academe
[46:07] in
[46:07] all
[46:08] other
[46:08] sectors
[46:09] in
[46:09] our
[46:10] society
[46:10] but
[46:11] the
[46:11] senate
[46:11] itself
[46:12] recognizes
[46:15] the
[46:16] leadership
[46:16] of
[46:16] acting
[46:17] senate
[46:18] president
[46:18] Gatchalian
[46:19] because
[46:20] they
[46:20] issued
[46:21] notices
[46:23] the
[46:24] staff
[46:25] in
[46:26] the
[46:26] Senate
[46:26] are
[46:28] in
[46:28] hearings
[46:30] under
[46:32] the
[46:32] directive
[46:32] of
[46:33] the
[46:34] acting
[46:34] senate
[46:34] president
[46:35] with
[46:36] the
[46:36] newly
[46:37] elected
[46:38] secretary
[46:38] general
[46:39] and
[46:40] sergeant
[46:40] at
[46:40] arms
[46:40] so
[46:40] it's
[46:41] not
[46:41] even
[46:42] us
[46:42] recognizing
[46:43] senator
[46:44] wing
[46:44] Gatchalian
[46:45] but
[46:45] the
[46:45] institution
[46:46] itself
[46:47] there's
[46:47] already
[46:47] that
[46:47] recognition
[46:48] of
[46:53] course
[46:53] acting
[46:54] SP
[46:55] has
[46:55] been
[46:55] elected
[46:55] as
[46:56] senate
[46:57] president
[46:57] pro
[46:57] tempore
[46:58] and
[46:59] because
[46:59] of
[46:59] the
[47:00] prior
[47:00] declaration
[47:01] of
[47:01] vacancy
[47:01] of
[47:02] all
[47:02] positions
[47:02] including
[47:03] the
[47:03] position
[47:04] of
[47:04] the
[47:04] senate
[47:04] president
[47:05] automatic
[47:05] as
[47:07] senate
[47:07] president
[47:07] pro
[47:08] tempore
[47:08] he
[47:08] is
[47:09] the
[47:09] acting
[47:09] senate
[47:10] president
[47:10] salamat
[47:17] eden
[47:17] our
[47:18] next
[47:18] question
[47:19] will come
[47:20] from
[47:21] Jonathan
[47:22] Andalop
[47:22] GMA7
[47:23] good
[47:25] morning
[47:26] po
[47:26] sabi
[47:29] senator
[47:29] Laxon
[47:30] only
[47:31] the
[47:31] prosecution
[47:32] and
[47:32] the
[47:32] defense
[47:32] can
[47:33] make
[47:33] a
[47:33] motion
[47:33] to
[47:34] reduce
[47:35] the
[47:35] threshold
[47:36] of
[47:37] 16
[47:37] votes
[47:37] to
[47:37] convict
[47:38] an
[47:38] impeachable
[47:38] officer
[47:39] in
[47:39] this
[47:39] case
[47:39] vice
[47:40] president
[47:40] Sara
[47:40] Duterte
[47:41] does
[47:41] the
[47:42] house
[47:42] prosecution
[47:43] team
[47:43] intend
[47:44] to
[47:45] make
[47:45] such
[47:45] motion
[47:46] para
[47:46] bawasan
[47:47] yung
[47:47] threshold
[47:48] ng
[47:48] threshold
[47:49] ng
[47:49] 16
[47:49] votes
[47:49] to
[47:50] convict
[47:50] we
[47:51] have
[47:51] not
[47:51] actually
[47:52] discussed
[47:53] about
[47:53] that
[47:53] us
[47:54] being
[47:55] a
[47:55] team
[47:55] no
[47:56] but
[47:56] I
[47:56] have
[47:56] expressed
[47:57] my
[47:57] position
[47:57] already
[47:58] that
[47:59] concerning
[48:00] the
[48:00] threshold
[48:01] for
[48:01] the
[48:01] purpose
[48:01] of
[48:02] conviction
[48:02] it
[48:03] is
[48:03] important
[48:04] to
[48:04] realize
[48:05] that
[48:06] the
[48:06] constitution
[48:07] and
[48:07] the
[48:07] laws
[48:07] are
[48:08] evolving
[48:09] why
[48:11] do
[48:11] I
[48:11] say
[48:11] that
[48:12] because
[48:12] the
[48:13] constitution
[48:13] should
[48:14] be
[48:14] responding
[48:15] to
[48:15] the
[48:15] demands
[48:16] of
[48:16] time
[48:16] just
[48:17] like
[48:17] any
[48:17] other
[48:17] law
[48:18] no
[48:18] and
[48:19] very
[48:20] enlightening
[48:21] itong
[48:22] nangyaring
[48:22] change
[48:23] of
[48:23] leadership
[48:23] sa
[48:24] senado
[48:24] because
[48:25] it
[48:26] invited
[48:26] our
[48:27] attention
[48:27] to
[48:27] look
[48:27] into
[48:28] the
[48:28] doctrine
[48:28] behind
[48:29] Avellino
[48:30] versus
[48:30] Cuenco
[48:31] in several
[48:33] occasions
[48:33] have
[48:34] practiced
[48:35] the
[48:35] Senate
[48:35] and
[48:36] have
[48:37] succeeded
[48:38] Supreme
[48:38] Court
[48:39] decisions
[48:39] along
[48:40] the
[48:40] same
[48:40] line
[48:41] so
[48:42] let us
[48:44] anchor
[48:45] our
[48:45] position
[48:46] on
[48:46] the
[48:47] mandate
[48:47] of
[48:47] the
[48:47] constitution
[48:48] why
[48:49] we
[48:49] have
[48:49] senadores
[48:50] primarily
[48:52] the
[48:52] purpose
[48:52] is
[48:53] to
[48:53] represent
[48:54] the
[48:54] interest
[48:55] of
[48:55] the
[48:55] Filipino
[48:56] people
[48:56] if
[48:57] our
[48:57] senadores
[48:58] are
[48:58] in
[48:58] hospital
[48:59] or
[49:03] abroad
[49:03] this is
[49:04] what
[49:04] is
[49:05] called
[49:06] Avellino
[49:06] versus
[49:06] Cuenco
[49:07] beyond the
[49:09] coercive
[49:09] power
[49:10] of the
[49:10] Senate
[49:10] and
[49:11] having
[49:12] said
[49:12] so
[49:13] plus
[49:14] it
[49:14] can't
[49:15] represent
[49:15] the
[49:15] interest
[49:16] of
[49:16] people
[49:17] how
[49:18] are
[49:18] we
[49:18] going
[49:18] to
[49:19] consider
[49:19] them
[49:19] for
[49:20] the
[49:20] purpose
[49:20] of
[49:21] determining
[49:22] the
[49:22] threshold
[49:23] or
[49:23] the
[49:24] required
[49:24] number
[49:24] of
[49:24] votes
[49:25] so
[49:25] personal
[49:26] opinion
[49:27] I
[49:28] believe
[49:29] that
[49:29] the
[49:29] doctrine
[49:30] in
[49:30] Avellino
[49:30] should
[49:31] be
[49:31] applied
[49:31] also
[49:32] in
[49:32] determining
[49:33] the
[49:33] number
[49:34] of
[49:34] votes
[49:34] required
[49:34] for
[49:35] the
[49:35] purpose
[49:35] of
[49:35] conviction
[49:36] that
[49:36] is
[49:37] my
[49:37] personal
[49:37] opinion
[49:38] with
[49:45] the
[49:45] current
[49:45] situation
[49:46] yes
[49:47] the
[49:48] same
[49:48] way
[49:48] that
[49:49] it
[49:49] was
[49:49] reduced
[49:50] in
[49:50] the
[49:50] election
[49:51] of
[49:51] Senate
[49:53] President
[49:53] Pro
[49:54] Tempore
[49:54] and
[49:55] the
[49:55] rest
[49:55] of
[49:56] the
[49:56] chairmen
[49:56] chairwomen
[49:58] of
[49:58] the
[49:58] different
[50:00] committees
[50:00] of
[50:00] the
[50:01] Senate
[50:01] this
[50:03] is
[50:07] my
[50:08] opinion
[50:08] if
[50:09] the
[50:09] voting
[50:10] will
[50:10] happen
[50:10] now
[50:11] it
[50:12] should
[50:12] be
[50:12] 22
[50:13] as
[50:13] well
[50:13] if
[50:15] I
[50:15] may
[50:15] add
[50:15] again
[50:17] this
[50:17] is
[50:17] just
[50:19] an
[50:19] opinion
[50:20] all
[50:21] of
[50:21] us
[50:21] has
[50:21] different
[50:22] opinions
[50:23] regarding
[50:23] the
[50:23] matter
[50:24] but
[50:24] I
[50:24] think
[50:25] we
[50:26] want
[50:28] the
[50:28] Senate
[50:28] which
[50:29] is
[50:29] operational
[50:30] a
[50:30] functional
[50:31] Senate
[50:31] we
[50:32] cannot
[50:32] have
[50:33] a
[50:33] functional
[50:33] Senate
[50:34] if
[50:34] some
[50:34] of
[50:34] the
[50:34] members
[50:35] will
[50:36] not
[50:36] be
[50:36] accessible
[50:37] in
[50:39] terms
[50:39] of
[50:40] passing
[50:42] their
[50:42] judgment
[50:43] through
[50:43] a
[50:43] vote
[50:43] we
[50:44] are
[50:44] talking
[50:45] about
[50:45] impeachment
[50:46] trial
[50:46] where
[50:47] the
[50:48] sitting
[50:48] senator
[50:48] sitting
[50:49] judge
[50:51] senator
[50:51] judge
[50:52] presence
[50:54] would
[50:54] be
[50:54] indispensable
[50:55] in
[50:55] determining
[50:56] the
[50:57] judgment
[51:02] by
[51:02] which
[51:03] one
[51:03] would
[51:03] have
[51:03] to
[51:04] arrive
[51:04] based
[51:05] on
[51:05] the
[51:05] evidence
[51:05] presented
[51:06] so
[51:07] I
[51:08] think
[51:08] we
[51:09] need
[51:09] to
[51:09] be
[51:12] practical
[51:12] in
[51:13] order
[51:14] to
[51:14] establish
[51:15] our
[51:15] belief
[51:17] that
[51:17] the
[51:17] Senate
[51:18] is
[51:18] not
[51:19] just
[51:19] an
[51:19] institution
[51:20] sitting
[51:20] there
[51:20] to
[51:21] hear
[51:22] and
[51:22] to
[51:22] try
[51:22] and
[51:23] decide
[51:23] but
[51:24] a
[51:24] functional
[51:24] Senate
[51:25] where
[51:25] the
[51:25] active
[51:26] members
[51:26] presence
[51:27] are
[51:28] secured
[51:29] a
[51:30] part
[51:31] of
[51:31] the
[51:31] deliberation
[51:32] can
[51:33] actually
[51:33] arrive
[51:33] into
[51:34] a
[51:34] sound
[51:34] judgment
[51:35] because
[51:36] of
[51:36] their
[51:36] actual
[51:36] presence
[51:37] by
[51:38] which
[51:38] these
[51:38] are
[51:39] the
[51:39] basis
[51:39] for
[51:39] them
[51:40] to
[51:40] pass
[51:40] on
[51:40] their
[51:41] judgment
[51:41] either
[51:41] to
[51:41] acquit
[51:42] or
[51:42] to
[51:42] convict
[51:43] Well under
[51:55] the
[51:55] plunder
[51:56] law
[51:57] and the
[51:57] anti-graph
[51:59] and corrupt
[51:59] practices
[52:00] act
[52:00] when
[52:01] the
[52:02] public
[52:03] officials
[52:03] are
[52:03] charged
[52:04] as
[52:04] such
[52:05] they
[52:05] are
[52:05] suspended
[52:06] from
[52:07] becoming
[52:07] a
[52:08] member
[52:08] of
[52:08] the
[52:08] Senate
[52:09] so
[52:09] suspended
[52:10] ka
[52:11] how
[52:12] can
[52:12] you
[52:12] attend
[52:13] are
[52:14] you
[52:15] still
[52:15] a
[52:15] senator
[52:15] on
[52:16] that
[52:16] particular
[52:16] occasion
[52:17] if
[52:17] you
[52:17] are
[52:18] suspended
[52:18] from
[52:18] your
[52:19] official
[52:19] duty
[52:19] I
[52:21] think
[52:21] the
[52:21] answer
[52:21] is
[52:21] clear
[52:22] no
[52:22] and
[52:23] to
[52:23] add
[52:23] to
[52:24] what
[52:24] Kong
[52:24] CS
[52:24] said
[52:25] no
[52:26] meron tayong
[52:27] mandato
[52:28] sa
[52:28] Constitution
[52:29] and
[52:31] that
[52:31] is
[52:31] to
[52:31] trial
[52:33] forth
[52:33] with
[52:33] no
[52:33] and
[52:35] if
[52:35] we
[52:35] hold
[52:36] the
[52:36] contra
[52:36] review
[52:37] it
[52:38] means
[52:39] that
[52:39] the
[52:40] constitutional
[52:40] mandate
[52:41] will
[52:41] be
[52:41] hostage
[52:42] by
[52:43] the
[52:43] different
[52:44] situations
[52:45] of
[52:46] some
[52:46] senators
[52:47] ilayo
[52:49] at
[52:49] wag
[52:49] ilapit
[52:50] no
[52:50] kung yung
[52:51] nagsisirculate
[52:52] sa social
[52:52] media
[52:53] mangyari
[52:53] sabihin natin
[52:55] eight or
[52:55] nine
[52:56] will be
[52:57] having their
[52:59] cases in
[53:00] court
[53:00] no
[53:00] masususpend
[53:02] as provided
[53:03] in
[53:03] the
[53:04] Plunder
[53:04] Law
[53:05] and the
[53:06] Anti-Graph
[53:06] and Corrupt
[53:07] Practices
[53:07] Act
[53:08] the
[53:08] required
[53:09] threshold
[53:10] is
[53:10] 16
[53:10] so
[53:11] that
[53:12] will
[53:12] mean
[53:12] that
[53:12] it
[53:13] will
[53:13] paralyze
[53:14] the
[53:14] accountability
[53:14] mechanism
[53:15] and
[53:16] we know
[53:18] of course
[53:18] that the
[53:18] Constitution
[53:19] is
[53:19] paramount
[53:20] it
[53:21] must
[53:21] not
[53:22] be
[53:22] conditioned
[53:23] to
[53:23] the
[53:23] situation
[53:24] of
[53:24] our
[53:24] senators
[53:25] this
[53:26] impeachment
[53:26] trial
[53:26] must
[53:27] proceed
[53:27] the
[53:28] decision
[53:29] must
[53:29] be
[53:29] rendered
[53:30] no
[53:31] and
[53:31] the
[53:31] threshold
[53:32] must
[53:32] be
[53:32] fixed
[53:33] depending
[53:34] on the
[53:35] current
[53:35] situation
[53:36] of our
[53:37] Senate
[53:37] well my
[54:03] my
[54:03] perspective
[54:04] is from
[54:05] the point
[54:06] of view
[54:06] that
[54:07] it
[54:08] is
[54:08] the
[54:08] Senate
[54:09] which
[54:09] has
[54:09] jurisdiction
[54:10] we
[54:11] cannot
[54:11] speak
[54:12] for
[54:12] we
[54:13] cannot
[54:13] speak
[54:14] for
[54:14] the
[54:14] Sandigan
[54:15] we
[54:15] cannot
[54:15] speak
[54:16] for
[54:16] the
[54:17] Ombudsman
[54:17] no
[54:18] of course
[54:19] from the
[54:20] perspective
[54:20] of
[54:21] Senate
[54:21] yan
[54:21] yang
[54:22] nago
[54:22] hold
[54:22] ng
[54:23] impeachment
[54:23] trial
[54:24] at
[54:24] hindi
[54:25] naman
[54:25] nila
[54:25] pwede
[54:26] basta
[54:26] pang
[54:27] himasukan
[54:27] what
[54:28] will
[54:28] be
[54:28] the
[54:28] decision
[54:29] of
[54:29] the
[54:29] Sandigan
[54:30] bayan
[54:30] I
[54:31] think
[54:31] it
[54:31] will
[54:32] be
[54:32] more
[54:32] appropriate
[54:33] to
[54:33] follow
[54:33] the
[54:33] doctrine
[54:34] of
[54:34] Avellino
[54:35] after
[54:36] all
[54:36] ibabalik
[54:37] ko
[54:37] doon
[54:37] sa
[54:38] mandato
[54:38] ng
[54:38] saligang
[54:39] batas
[54:39] dapat
[54:41] ang
[54:41] senador
[54:42] magrepresent
[54:43] ng
[54:43] interest
[54:43] ng
[54:43] sambayan
[54:44] ng
[54:44] Pilipino
[54:45] during
[54:45] that
[54:45] impeachment
[54:46] trial
[54:46] and
[54:47] if
[54:47] you
[54:47] are
[54:48] detained
[54:48] if
[54:49] you
[54:49] are
[54:49] in
[54:50] hiding
[54:50] the
[54:51] question
[54:52] is
[54:52] are
[54:53] you
[54:53] representing
[54:54] the
[54:54] interest
[54:54] of
[54:55] the
[54:55] Filipino
[54:55] when
[54:56] in
[54:56] fact
[54:57] you
[54:57] cannot
[54:57] attend
[54:57] because
[54:58] of
[54:58] your
[54:58] personal
[54:59] dilemma
[55:00] no
[55:00] so
[55:01] we
[55:02] cannot
[55:03] subordinate
[55:04] the
[55:04] constitutional
[55:05] mandate
[55:06] to the
[55:07] situation
[55:07] in
[55:07] the
[55:07] Senate
[55:08] Constitution
[55:09] is
[55:09] paramount
[55:10] therefore
[55:11] it
[55:12] must
[55:12] be
[55:12] interpreted
[55:13] in a
[55:13] way
[55:14] to
[55:14] give
[55:15] light
[55:15] to
[55:15] the
[55:15] implementation
[55:16] of the
[55:17] constitutional
[55:17] mandate
[55:18] last
[55:19] question
[55:19] I cannot
[55:29] divulge
[55:30] yet
[55:30] no
[55:30] ilang
[55:31] oras
[55:31] na
[55:31] lang
[55:31] naman
[55:32] at
[55:32] ma-file
[55:33] na
[55:33] yung
[55:33] pre-trial
[55:34] brief
[55:35] pakihintay
[55:35] na lang
[55:35] po
[55:36] because
[55:36] our
[55:36] deadline
[55:37] is
[55:37] today
[55:37] thank you
[55:38] ma'am
[55:44] thank you
[55:45] jonathan
[55:46] from
[55:46] rappler
[55:47] dwight
[55:48] de leon
[55:48] is now
[55:49] recognized
[55:50] hello
[55:50] good
[55:50] afternoon
[55:51] question
[55:52] follow
[55:52] up
[55:53] because
[55:54] again
[55:55] this is
[55:55] your
[55:55] legal
[55:56] opinion
[55:56] so
[55:57] with
[55:57] 22
[55:58] senators
[56:00] who are
[56:01] functioning
[56:02] as a
[56:02] scenario
[56:03] based on
[56:04] your
[56:04] legal
[56:04] opinion
[56:04] does
[56:05] that
[56:05] mean
[56:05] for you
[56:06] the
[56:06] conviction
[56:07] threshold
[56:07] should
[56:08] be
[56:08] reduced
[56:08] to
[56:09] 15
[56:09] given
[56:10] that
[56:11] i
[56:11] don't
[56:11] have
[56:11] to
[56:12] compute
[56:14] two
[56:14] thirds
[56:15] of
[56:15] 22
[56:15] so
[56:16] that's
[56:16] 15
[56:17] yes
[56:18] yes
[56:18] congressman
[56:19] jinkies
[56:20] since this
[56:20] is also
[56:20] in the
[56:21] realm
[56:21] of
[56:21] possibilities
[56:22] given
[56:22] that
[56:22] it's
[56:23] 8
[56:23] if
[56:25] one
[56:25] more
[56:26] senator
[56:27] is
[56:28] arrested
[56:28] or
[56:29] is
[56:30] subjected
[56:30] to
[56:30] an
[56:30] arrest
[56:31] warrant
[56:31] the
[56:32] count
[56:32] would
[56:32] be
[56:32] reduced
[56:33] to
[56:33] 21
[56:34] so
[56:34] in
[56:34] your
[56:35] legal
[56:35] opinion
[56:35] if
[56:36] that
[56:36] happens
[56:36] could
[56:37] the
[56:38] conviction
[56:39] threshold
[56:40] be
[56:40] further
[56:40] reduced
[56:40] to
[56:41] 14
[56:41] because
[56:42] two
[56:42] thirds
[56:43] of
[56:43] 21
[56:43] is
[56:44] 14
[56:44] what
[56:46] my
[56:46] position
[56:47] is
[56:47] to
[56:47] apply
[56:48] the
[56:48] doctrine
[56:48] in
[56:48] Avellino
[56:49] so
[56:50] ang
[56:50] test
[56:50] natin
[56:51] are
[56:51] they
[56:51] still
[56:52] within
[56:52] the
[56:52] coercive
[56:53] power
[56:54] of
[56:54] the
[56:54] senate
[56:54] if
[56:55] the
[56:55] answer
[56:55] is
[56:55] no
[56:56] then
[56:56] the
[56:57] number
[56:57] should
[56:57] be
[56:57] reduced
[56:58] to
[56:58] 14
[56:59] to
[56:59] 14
[57:00] 14
[57:01] for
[57:01] the
[57:01] threshold
[57:02] 21
[57:03] for
[57:03] the
[57:03] baseline
[57:04] and
[57:05] since
[57:05] nandito
[57:06] Congresswoman
[57:07] Bell
[57:08] is that
[57:08] also
[57:09] an
[57:09] opinion
[57:09] that you
[57:10] subscribe
[57:10] to
[57:10] because
[57:10] I think
[57:12] Kong
[57:12] Xi
[57:12] said
[57:12] it's not
[57:15] yet
[57:16] so
[57:18] Congresswoman
[57:18] Bell
[57:19] is that
[57:19] also
[57:20] an
[57:20] opinion
[57:20] that
[57:20] you
[57:20] subscribe
[57:21] to
[57:21] yes
[57:22] it
[57:22] is
[57:22] an
[57:22] opinion
[57:23] I
[57:23] share
[57:23] with
[57:24] chair
[57:24] Jinky
[57:25] and
[57:26] do
[57:26] I
[57:26] also
[57:27] the
[57:27] opinion
[57:27] I
[57:28] share
[57:28] with
[57:28] Kong
[57:28] Jinky
[57:29] again
[57:31] again
[57:32] we
[57:32] need
[57:33] we
[57:33] need
[57:33] a
[57:33] Senate
[57:34] that
[57:34] is
[57:34] functioning
[57:35] and
[57:36] for
[57:36] all
[57:37] of
[57:37] the
[57:38] procedures
[57:39] that
[57:39] the
[57:40] Senate
[57:40] will
[57:40] be
[57:40] doing
[57:41] we
[57:41] need
[57:41] senators
[57:42] who
[57:43] are
[57:43] able
[57:44] to
[57:45] do
[57:45] their
[57:45] job
[57:46] and
[57:46] if
[57:47] one
[57:47] is
[57:47] hiding
[57:48] purposefully
[57:49] hiding
[57:51] from
[57:51] not only
[57:54] his job
[57:54] but
[57:54] from
[57:55] the
[57:55] people
[57:56] then
[57:56] he
[57:56] shouldn't
[57:57] be
[57:57] included
[57:57] in
[57:59] the
[57:59] number
[58:01] when
[58:02] we
[58:02] count
[58:02] whether
[58:04] this
[58:04] is
[58:04] for
[58:05] quorum
[58:05] purposes
[58:06] or
[58:06] whether
[58:06] this
[58:07] is
[58:07] for
[58:07] for
[58:08] the
[58:09] determination
[58:09] of
[58:10] conviction
[58:11] so
[58:12] I
[58:12] share
[58:13] the
[58:13] same
[58:13] view
[58:13] as
[58:14] chair
[58:14] woman
[58:14] Jinky
[58:15] also
[58:16] Dwight
[58:16] just
[58:17] to
[58:17] also
[58:17] to
[58:17] add
[58:18] to
[58:18] that
[58:18] we
[58:19] don't
[58:19] award
[58:20] yung
[58:20] sinabi
[58:21] ni
[58:21] ni
[58:22] congresswoman
[58:23] Jinky
[58:23] yung
[58:24] doctrine
[58:25] of
[58:25] it
[58:26] should
[58:26] not
[58:27] be
[58:27] applied
[58:27] because
[58:27] what
[58:28] we
[58:28] want
[58:28] is
[58:29] a
[58:29] functional
[58:29] senate
[58:29] and
[58:30] functional
[58:30] senate
[58:31] meaning
[58:31] active
[58:32] members
[58:32] deliberating
[58:34] in a
[58:34] very
[58:35] important
[58:35] subject
[58:35] matter
[58:36] it
[58:36] should
[58:37] not
[58:37] also
[58:37] be
[58:38] looked
[58:38] at
[58:38] in
[58:38] the
[58:38] lens
[58:39] of
[58:39] impeachment
[58:39] trial
[58:40] but
[58:40] there
[58:40] are
[58:40] also
[58:40] other
[58:41] cases
[58:42] concurrence
[58:42] of
[58:42] treaties
[58:43] declaration
[58:45] of
[58:46] war
[58:46] because
[58:46] it
[58:46] has
[58:47] to
[58:47] have
[58:47] a
[58:47] concurrence
[58:48] of
[58:48] the
[58:48] of
[58:49] the
[58:49] senate
[58:49] so
[58:50] if
[58:50] you
[58:50] don't
[58:50] have
[58:51] that
[58:51] if
[58:52] you
[58:52] don't
[58:52] apply
[58:52] the
[58:53] the
[58:53] Doctrine
[58:54] which
[58:55] by the
[58:56] way
[58:56] the
[58:56] senate
[58:56] is
[58:56] beyond
[58:57] this
[58:57] coercive
[58:57] power
[58:58] to
[58:58] require
[59:00] members
[59:01] who
[59:02] are
[59:02] behind
[59:03] bars
[59:03] or
[59:03] whatever
[59:04] because
[59:04] of
[59:04] their
[59:05] incapacity
[59:06] by means
[59:07] of
[59:07] presence
[59:08] they
[59:08] cannot
[59:09] vote
[59:09] so
[59:10] what
[59:10] would
[59:11] happen
[59:11] to
[59:11] other
[59:11] issues
[59:13] not
[59:14] only
[59:14] impeachment
[59:15] trial
[59:15] but
[59:15] concurrence
[59:17] of
[59:17] the
[59:17] treaties
[59:17] and
[59:19] then
[59:20] declaration
[59:20] of
[59:21] war
[59:21] which
[59:21] requires
[59:22] the
[59:22] senate
[59:23] for
[59:24] concurrence
[59:24] so
[59:25] I
[59:25] think
[59:25] it's
[59:25] not
[59:26] only
[59:26] legal
[59:27] but
[59:27] it
[59:28] also
[59:28] to
[59:28] be
[59:28] looked
[59:29] at
[59:29] in
[59:29] its
[59:29] practical
[59:30] sense
[59:30] because
[59:31] ultimately
[59:32] what
[59:32] we
[59:32] want
[59:33] is
[59:33] for
[59:33] the
[59:34] senate
[59:34] as
[59:34] an
[59:34] institution
[59:35] to
[59:35] deliver
[59:36] its
[59:36] mandate
[59:36] according
[59:37] to
[59:37] what
[59:37] the
[59:38] constitution
[59:38] says
[59:39] I
[59:41] talked
[59:41] to
[59:41] a
[59:42] constitutional
[59:42] lawyer
[59:43] last
[59:43] week
[59:43] and
[59:45] he
[59:45] agrees
[59:45] with
[59:45] his
[59:45] emerging
[59:46] view
[59:46] about
[59:46] reconsidering
[59:48] the
[59:48] conviction
[59:49] threshold
[59:49] but
[59:49] he
[59:50] said
[59:50] that
[59:50] it
[59:51] should
[59:51] be
[59:51] accommodated
[59:52] when
[59:53] we
[59:53] reach
[59:53] an
[59:53] extraordinary
[59:54] point
[59:54] which
[59:55] we have
[59:55] not
[59:56] think
[59:57] that
[59:57] if
[59:58] one
[59:58] more
[59:58] senator
[59:59] is
[59:59] arrested
[59:59] that
[1:00:00] is
[1:00:00] an
[1:00:00] extraordinary
[1:00:01] situation
[1:00:02] an
[1:00:02] unprecedented
[1:00:03] situation
[1:00:04] that
[1:00:05] warrants
[1:00:06] the
[1:00:06] impeachment
[1:00:07] court
[1:00:07] to
[1:00:08] consider
[1:00:10] seriously
[1:00:10] whether
[1:00:11] we
[1:00:11] should
[1:00:11] reduce
[1:00:12] the
[1:00:12] conviction
[1:00:12] threshold
[1:00:13] yes
[1:00:14] as a
[1:00:15] matter
[1:00:15] of
[1:00:15] fact
[1:00:15] even
[1:00:16] prior
[1:00:17] to
[1:00:17] the
[1:00:17] arrest
[1:00:18] of
[1:00:18] whoever
[1:00:19] will
[1:00:19] be
[1:00:19] the
[1:00:19] third
[1:00:20] I
[1:00:20] believe
[1:00:21] that
[1:00:21] it
[1:00:21] should
[1:00:21] be
[1:00:22] interpreted
[1:00:23] already
[1:00:24] in a
[1:00:24] way
[1:00:25] that
[1:00:25] we
[1:00:25] will
[1:00:25] be
[1:00:25] able
[1:00:26] to
[1:00:26] address
[1:00:26] the
[1:00:26] present
[1:00:27] situation
[1:00:27] no
[1:00:28] I
[1:00:29] said
[1:00:29] earlier
[1:00:29] that
[1:00:30] the
[1:00:30] constitution
[1:00:31] is
[1:00:31] evolving
[1:00:31] the
[1:00:33] laws
[1:00:33] are
[1:00:33] evolving
[1:00:34] the
[1:00:35] supreme
[1:00:35] court
[1:00:35] decisions
[1:00:36] are
[1:00:36] evolving
[1:00:37] and
[1:00:38] by
[1:00:38] evolving
[1:00:39] what
[1:00:39] I
[1:00:39] meant
[1:00:39] was
[1:00:40] hindi
[1:00:41] enough
[1:00:41] na
[1:00:41] meron tayong
[1:00:42] batas
[1:00:43] yung
[1:00:44] batas
[1:00:44] dapat
[1:00:45] tumutugon
[1:00:46] sa
[1:00:47] kasalukuyang
[1:00:47] sitwasyon
[1:00:48] it should
[1:00:49] be able
[1:00:49] to
[1:00:50] respond
[1:00:50] to the
[1:00:51] current
[1:00:51] demands
[1:00:52] of
[1:00:52] time
[1:00:52] another
[1:00:55] topic
[1:00:55] related
[1:00:56] to
[1:00:56] the
[1:00:56] pretrial
[1:00:57] proceedings
[1:00:57] we
[1:00:58] didn't
[1:00:58] have
[1:00:58] a
[1:00:58] pretrial
[1:00:59] proceeding
[1:00:59] during
[1:00:59] the
[1:01:00] corona
[1:01:00] trial
[1:01:00] but
[1:01:01] meron
[1:01:01] po
[1:01:01] tayong
[1:01:02] pretrial
[1:01:02] proceeding
[1:01:03] during
[1:01:03] the
[1:01:04] Estrada
[1:01:05] trial
[1:01:05] and
[1:01:05] news
[1:01:06] archives
[1:01:06] suggest
[1:01:07] or indicate
[1:01:07] that
[1:01:08] during
[1:01:09] the
[1:01:09] pretrial
[1:01:09] proceedings
[1:01:10] the
[1:01:10] prosecution
[1:01:11] and
[1:01:11] the
[1:01:11] defense
[1:01:12] agreed
[1:01:13] to
[1:01:13] finishing
[1:01:14] the
[1:01:15] entire
[1:01:16] trial
[1:01:16] or the
[1:01:16] trial
[1:01:16] proper
[1:01:17] within
[1:01:18] or by
[1:01:18] 34
[1:01:19] days
[1:01:19] part
[1:01:31] of
[1:01:31] the
[1:01:32] things
[1:01:32] to be
[1:01:33] talked
[1:01:33] about
[1:01:34] during
[1:01:34] pretrial
[1:01:34] conference
[1:01:35] is the
[1:01:36] schedule
[1:01:36] of
[1:01:37] trial
[1:01:37] dates
[1:01:38] and
[1:01:39] that
[1:01:39] includes
[1:01:40] of
[1:01:40] course
[1:01:41] the
[1:01:41] number
[1:01:41] of
[1:01:42] schedule
[1:01:43] that
[1:01:43] we
[1:01:43] will
[1:01:43] be
[1:01:44] needing
[1:01:44] for
[1:01:45] the
[1:01:45] purpose
[1:01:45] of
[1:01:46] presenting
[1:01:46] the
[1:01:46] prosecution's
[1:01:47] evidence
[1:01:48] same
[1:01:48] is
[1:01:49] true
[1:01:49] with
[1:01:49] respect
[1:01:49] to
[1:01:50] the
[1:01:50] defense
[1:01:50] tatanungin
[1:01:51] din
[1:01:52] sila
[1:01:52] ilang
[1:01:53] trial
[1:01:53] dates
[1:01:53] ang
[1:01:54] kailangan
[1:01:54] nila
[1:01:54] to
[1:01:55] conclude
[1:01:55] the
[1:01:56] presentation
[1:01:56] of
[1:01:56] their
[1:01:56] evidence
[1:01:57] so
[1:01:57] to
[1:01:57] your
[1:01:57] question
[1:01:58] yes
[1:01:59] the
[1:01:59] number
[1:01:59] of
[1:01:59] trial
[1:02:00] dates
[1:02:00] will
[1:02:00] be
[1:02:00] determined
[1:02:01] as well
[1:02:01] during
[1:02:02] the
[1:02:02] pretrial
[1:02:02] conference
[1:02:03] Congresswoman
[1:02:04] Jinky
[1:02:04] ballpark
[1:02:05] figure
[1:02:05] lang
[1:02:05] sa
[1:02:05] bahagi
[1:02:06] ng
[1:02:06] prosecution
[1:02:06] ilang
[1:02:07] buwan
[1:02:07] kaya
[1:02:07] to
[1:02:07] at
[1:02:07] least
[1:02:08] minimum
[1:02:08] isang
[1:02:09] buwan
[1:02:09] dalawang
[1:02:09] buwan
[1:02:10] tatlong
[1:02:10] buwan
[1:02:10] ang
[1:02:11] aking
[1:02:11] estimate
[1:02:12] is
[1:02:12] if we
[1:02:13] will
[1:02:13] be
[1:02:13] starting
[1:02:14] on
[1:02:14] July
[1:02:14] 6
[1:02:15] we
[1:02:16] will
[1:02:16] perhaps
[1:02:16] end
[1:02:17] by
[1:02:17] end
[1:02:18] of
[1:02:18] September
[1:02:18] 2026
[1:02:20] I checked
[1:02:25] the
[1:02:25] corona
[1:02:26] impeachment
[1:02:27] trial
[1:02:28] it
[1:02:28] started
[1:02:28] January
[1:02:29] 12
[1:02:29] to
[1:02:30] May
[1:02:30] 29
[1:02:30] so
[1:02:31] that
[1:02:31] is
[1:02:31] equivalent
[1:02:31] to
[1:02:32] four
[1:02:32] months
[1:02:32] so
[1:02:33] kung
[1:02:33] wala
[1:02:34] namang
[1:02:34] delay
[1:02:34] tuloy-tuloy
[1:02:35] tingin ko
[1:02:36] kakayanin
[1:02:37] ito
[1:02:37] for
[1:02:37] three
[1:02:38] months
[1:02:38] sorry
[1:02:39] may follow
[1:02:39] up
[1:02:39] question
[1:02:39] po
[1:02:40] pala
[1:02:40] tungkol
[1:02:42] sa
[1:02:42] may
[1:02:43] ilalagay
[1:02:45] niyo
[1:02:45] po
[1:02:45] sa
[1:02:45] pretrial
[1:02:46] brief
[1:02:46] kung
[1:02:46] ano
[1:02:47] yung
[1:02:47] order
[1:02:48] of
[1:02:48] the
[1:02:48] presentation
[1:02:49] of
[1:02:49] the
[1:02:49] article
[1:02:50] of
[1:02:50] impeachment
[1:02:50] at
[1:02:51] ano
[1:02:51] po
[1:02:51] yung
[1:02:51] mauna
[1:02:51] dun
[1:02:52] sa
[1:02:52] amat
[1:02:53] yes
[1:02:54] I
[1:02:54] think
[1:02:54] that's
[1:02:55] part
[1:02:55] also
[1:02:55] of
[1:02:56] the
[1:02:56] notice
[1:02:56] that
[1:02:57] we
[1:02:57] received
[1:02:57] to
[1:02:57] determine
[1:02:58] the
[1:02:58] order
[1:02:59] of
[1:02:59] presentation
[1:03:00] of
[1:03:00] the
[1:03:00] articles
[1:03:01] of
[1:03:01] impeachment
[1:03:01] so
[1:03:02] mamaya
[1:03:03] nyo
[1:03:03] na rin
[1:03:03] lang
[1:03:04] malaman
[1:03:04] after
[1:03:05] the
[1:03:05] filing
[1:03:05] of
[1:03:05] the
[1:03:05] pretrial
[1:03:06] brief
[1:03:06] and
[1:03:08] lastly
[1:03:08] po
[1:03:09] doon
[1:03:09] sa
[1:03:09] list
[1:03:10] of
[1:03:10] witnesses
[1:03:10] alin
[1:03:11] alin
[1:03:11] doon
[1:03:12] or
[1:03:12] witnesses
[1:03:13] sa
[1:03:13] patungkol
[1:03:14] sa
[1:03:14] ang
[1:03:14] topic
[1:03:15] nage-expect
[1:03:16] ang
[1:03:16] prosecution
[1:03:17] ng
[1:03:17] matinding
[1:03:18] pushback
[1:03:18] from
[1:03:19] the
[1:03:20] Duterte
[1:03:20] camp
[1:03:20] kasi
[1:03:21] even
[1:03:21] during
[1:03:22] the
[1:03:22] pretrial
[1:03:23] proceedings
[1:03:23] in
[1:03:23] the
[1:03:23] Estrada
[1:03:24] trial
[1:03:24] I
[1:03:24] think
[1:03:25] based
[1:03:26] on
[1:03:26] news
[1:03:26] articles
[1:03:27] may
[1:03:27] mga
[1:03:28] sinaggest
[1:03:28] yung
[1:03:29] prosecution
[1:03:29] at
[1:03:29] that
[1:03:30] time
[1:03:30] na
[1:03:30] isasubti
[1:03:30] ng
[1:03:31] mga
[1:03:31] witnesses
[1:03:31] na
[1:03:32] inoppose
[1:03:33] significantly
[1:03:34] ng
[1:03:34] defense
[1:03:36] team
[1:03:36] ng
[1:03:37] Estrada
[1:03:37] camp
[1:03:37] at
[1:03:37] that
[1:03:37] time
[1:03:38] without
[1:03:38] specifically
[1:03:39] mentioning
[1:03:40] the
[1:03:41] witnesses
[1:03:42] and
[1:03:43] the
[1:03:43] exhibits
[1:03:44] to be
[1:03:44] presented
[1:03:44] but
[1:03:45] we
[1:03:45] anticipate
[1:03:45] that
[1:03:46] to
[1:03:46] happen
[1:03:46] in
[1:03:47] the
[1:03:47] article
[1:03:47] for
[1:03:48] unexplained
[1:03:49] wealth
[1:03:49] kasi
[1:03:50] naramdaman
[1:03:50] na
[1:03:50] namin
[1:03:51] yan
[1:03:51] during
[1:03:52] the
[1:03:52] justice
[1:03:52] committee
[1:03:53] proceeding
[1:03:53] so
[1:03:54] do
[1:03:54] you
[1:03:54] think
[1:03:54] po
[1:03:55] na
[1:03:55] ioppose
[1:03:57] ng
[1:03:58] Duterte
[1:03:58] camp
[1:03:58] extremely
[1:03:59] yung
[1:04:00] inyong
[1:04:01] move
[1:04:01] to
[1:04:02] subpina
[1:04:02] bank
[1:04:03] records
[1:04:04] bank
[1:04:05] officials
[1:04:05] we
[1:04:06] anticipate
[1:04:06] that
[1:04:07] as
[1:04:07] a
[1:04:07] matter
[1:04:08] of
[1:04:08] fact
[1:04:08] naalala
[1:04:09] nyo
[1:04:09] nung
[1:04:09] proceeding
[1:04:10] before
[1:04:10] the
[1:04:10] justice
[1:04:11] committee
[1:04:11] they
[1:04:12] filed
[1:04:12] criminal
[1:04:13] case
[1:04:13] against
[1:04:14] us
[1:04:14] for
[1:04:14] violation
[1:04:15] of
[1:04:15] the
[1:04:16] alleged
[1:04:16] confidentiality
[1:04:18] in
[1:04:18] the
[1:04:19] anti
[1:04:19] money
[1:04:19] laundering
[1:04:20] act
[1:04:20] that
[1:04:21] was
[1:04:21] the
[1:04:21] time
[1:04:22] also
[1:04:22] when
[1:04:22] they
[1:04:23] filed
[1:04:23] a
[1:04:23] petition
[1:04:23] on
[1:04:25] the
[1:04:25] disclosure
[1:04:26] of
[1:04:26] transactions
[1:04:27] by
[1:04:27] the
[1:04:27] AMLC
[1:04:28] with
[1:04:28] the
[1:04:29] Quezon
[1:04:29] City
[1:04:29] regional
[1:04:29] trial
[1:04:30] court
[1:04:30] as
[1:04:30] well
[1:04:30] and
[1:04:31] if
[1:04:31] you
[1:04:31] will
[1:04:31] go
[1:04:32] over
[1:04:32] the
[1:04:32] issues
[1:04:34] raised
[1:04:35] in
[1:04:35] the
[1:04:35] petitions
[1:04:36] raised
[1:04:36] in
[1:04:37] the
[1:04:37] Supreme
[1:04:37] Court
[1:04:37] kassama
[1:04:38] din
[1:04:38] yan
[1:04:38] yung
[1:04:39] confidentiality
[1:04:40] ng
[1:04:40] bank
[1:04:41] transactions
[1:04:41] confidentiality
[1:04:43] ng
[1:04:43] AMLOC
[1:04:44] transactions
[1:04:44] so
[1:04:45] as
[1:04:45] early
[1:04:46] as
[1:04:46] now
[1:04:46] we
[1:04:46] anticipate
[1:04:47] already
[1:04:47] that
[1:04:48] we
[1:04:48] will
[1:04:48] feel
[1:04:48] the
[1:04:49] challenge
[1:04:49] during
[1:04:49] presentation
[1:04:50] dito
[1:04:51] sa
[1:04:51] unexplained
[1:04:51] wealth
[1:04:52] Maraming
[1:04:53] salamat
[1:04:53] po
[1:04:53] Salamat
[1:04:55] Dwight
[1:04:56] Next
[1:04:56] is
[1:04:57] Isaiah
[1:04:58] Mira
[1:04:58] Puentes
[1:04:58] Apabante
[1:05:00] Billionario
[1:05:01] Hello
[1:05:03] Good
[1:05:03] afternoon
[1:05:04] Regarding
[1:05:05] po
[1:05:06] ulit
[1:05:06] dun
[1:05:06] sa
[1:05:06] 16
[1:05:07] required
[1:05:07] number
[1:05:07] of
[1:05:08] votes
[1:05:08] na
[1:05:08] sinasabi
[1:05:08] nila
[1:05:09] Can we
[1:05:09] give a
[1:05:10] hope
[1:05:10] na
[1:05:10] whatever
[1:05:11] the
[1:05:11] threshold
[1:05:12] is
[1:05:12] kayang
[1:05:13] kayang
[1:05:14] maabot
[1:05:14] para
[1:05:15] maconvict
[1:05:15] si
[1:05:15] Vice
[1:05:16] President
[1:05:16] Sara
[1:05:16] Duterte
[1:05:17] It is
[1:05:23] not
[1:05:24] for
[1:05:24] us
[1:05:24] to
[1:05:25] say
[1:05:25] to
[1:05:26] say
[1:05:26] kung
[1:05:27] kayang
[1:05:27] kaya
[1:05:27] abutin
[1:05:28] as
[1:05:29] prosecutors
[1:05:30] our
[1:05:30] sole
[1:05:31] job
[1:05:32] is to
[1:05:32] present
[1:05:32] evidence
[1:05:33] regarding
[1:05:34] the
[1:05:35] charges
[1:05:35] regarding
[1:05:36] the
[1:05:36] articles
[1:05:37] of
[1:05:38] impeachment
[1:05:38] So
[1:05:39] yun lang po
[1:05:40] ang
[1:05:40] trabaho
[1:05:40] namin
[1:05:41] now
[1:05:41] we
[1:05:42] leave
[1:05:42] it
[1:05:42] up
[1:05:42] to
[1:05:42] the
[1:05:43] Senate
[1:05:43] who
[1:05:44] will
[1:05:44] be
[1:05:44] of
[1:05:44] course
[1:05:44] swayed
[1:05:45] by
[1:05:45] public
[1:05:45] opinion
[1:05:46] once
[1:05:47] we
[1:05:47] lay
[1:05:49] down
[1:05:49] our
[1:05:50] evidence
[1:05:51] So
[1:05:53] as I
[1:05:55] understand
[1:05:55] based
[1:05:56] on the
[1:05:56] constitution
[1:05:56] kasi
[1:05:57] two
[1:05:58] thirds
[1:05:59] of
[1:05:59] all
[1:05:59] senators
[1:06:00] can we
[1:06:00] explain
[1:06:01] to the
[1:06:01] public
[1:06:01] kasi
[1:06:01] nakalagay
[1:06:02] doon
[1:06:02] all
[1:06:03] so
[1:06:04] pakiramdam
[1:06:05] namin
[1:06:05] 24
[1:06:06] If you
[1:06:07] want
[1:06:08] to be
[1:06:08] literal
[1:06:10] ang
[1:06:12] sinabi
[1:06:12] sa
[1:06:12] constitution
[1:06:13] two
[1:06:13] thirds
[1:06:14] of
[1:06:14] all
[1:06:14] members
[1:06:15] of
[1:06:15] the
[1:06:15] Senate
[1:06:15] it
[1:06:16] did
[1:06:16] not
[1:06:17] say
[1:06:17] two
[1:06:18] thirds
[1:06:18] of
[1:06:18] the
[1:06:18] 24
[1:06:19] members
[1:06:20] of
[1:06:21] the
[1:06:21] Senate
[1:06:21] so
[1:06:22] I
[1:06:22] think
[1:06:23] the
[1:06:23] use
[1:06:23] of
[1:06:23] all
[1:06:24] and
[1:06:24] we
[1:06:24] can
[1:06:24] check
[1:06:25] perhaps
[1:06:25] this
[1:06:25] from
[1:06:26] the
[1:06:26] framers
[1:06:27] of
[1:06:27] the
[1:06:27] constitution
[1:06:27] is
[1:06:28] in
[1:06:28] order
[1:06:29] to
[1:06:29] give
[1:06:29] room
[1:06:30] to
[1:06:31] the
[1:06:31] people
[1:06:31] in
[1:06:32] the
[1:06:32] government
[1:06:32] the
[1:06:33] senators
[1:06:34] the
[1:06:34] Supreme
[1:06:35] Court
[1:06:35] to
[1:06:35] interpret
[1:06:36] the
[1:06:36] same
[1:06:37] to
[1:06:37] a
[1:06:37] way
[1:06:38] that
[1:06:38] the
[1:06:39] constitutional
[1:06:40] mandate
[1:06:40] will
[1:06:41] still
[1:06:41] be
[1:06:41] given
[1:06:42] effect
[1:06:43] no
[1:06:43] just
[1:06:44] like
[1:06:44] nowadays
[1:06:45] my
[1:06:46] discussion
[1:06:47] about
[1:06:48] how many
[1:06:49] is the
[1:06:49] threshold
[1:06:50] how many
[1:06:51] is the
[1:06:51] quorum
[1:06:51] and
[1:06:52] we
[1:06:52] are
[1:06:53] able
[1:06:53] to
[1:06:53] see
[1:06:54] the
[1:06:54] doctrine
[1:06:55] in
[1:06:55] Avelino
[1:06:56] versus
[1:06:57] Cuenco
[1:06:57] so
[1:06:58] I
[1:06:58] think
[1:06:58] these
[1:06:59] decisions
[1:07:00] came up
[1:07:01] because
[1:07:02] during
[1:07:03] the
[1:07:03] time
[1:07:03] they
[1:07:03] also
[1:07:04] anticipated
[1:07:04] things
[1:07:05] like
[1:07:05] this
[1:07:05] things
[1:07:06] which
[1:07:07] we
[1:07:07] are
[1:07:07] encountering
[1:07:08] right
[1:07:08] now
[1:07:09] Basta
[1:07:10] sa
[1:07:10] aken
[1:07:10] lang
[1:07:11] let
[1:07:11] us
[1:07:11] anchor
[1:07:12] our
[1:07:12] interpretation
[1:07:13] to
[1:07:13] the
[1:07:13] mandate
[1:07:13] of
[1:07:14] the
[1:07:14] senators
[1:07:14] are
[1:07:15] you
[1:07:15] still
[1:07:16] representing
[1:07:16] the
[1:07:16] interest
[1:07:17] of
[1:07:17] the
[1:07:17] Filipino
[1:07:17] people
[1:07:18] if
[1:07:19] the
[1:07:19] answer
[1:07:19] is
[1:07:19] no
[1:07:19] then
[1:07:20] the
[1:07:20] threshold
[1:07:20] must
[1:07:21] be
[1:07:21] reduced
[1:07:21] But
[1:07:23] Congressman
[1:07:24] Luis
[1:07:24] can you
[1:07:25] also
[1:07:25] explain
[1:07:26] to us
[1:07:26] anong
[1:07:26] magiging
[1:07:26] trabaho
[1:07:27] nung
[1:07:27] mga
[1:07:28] senador
[1:07:29] like
[1:07:30] for
[1:07:30] example
[1:07:30] Senator
[1:07:30] Jingo
[1:07:31] Estrada
[1:07:31] anong
[1:07:32] magiging
[1:07:32] role
[1:07:33] na lang
[1:07:33] nila
[1:07:33] at
[1:07:33] pwede
[1:07:33] nilang
[1:07:34] gawin
[1:07:34] during
[1:07:35] the
[1:07:35] impeachment
[1:07:35] tryout
[1:07:36] First
[1:07:36] and
[1:07:37] foremost
[1:07:37] sabi
[1:07:37] sa
[1:07:38] Plunder
[1:07:38] Law
[1:07:39] at
[1:07:39] saka
[1:07:40] sa
[1:07:40] R.A.3019
[1:07:41] Anti-graph
[1:07:42] and Corrupt
[1:07:43] Practices
[1:07:44] Act
[1:07:44] kapag
[1:07:45] na-file
[1:07:45] sila
[1:07:46] ng
[1:07:46] kaso
[1:07:46] suspended
[1:07:47] din
[1:07:48] sila
[1:07:48] sa
[1:07:49] pagiging
[1:07:49] senador
[1:07:50] so
[1:07:51] what
[1:07:51] function
[1:07:52] are we
[1:07:53] expecting
[1:07:54] them
[1:07:54] to
[1:07:54] discharge
[1:07:55] if
[1:07:56] they
[1:07:56] are
[1:07:56] suspended
[1:07:57] from
[1:07:58] their
[1:07:58] official
[1:07:59] capacity
[1:07:59] as
[1:08:00] members
[1:08:00] of
[1:08:00] the
[1:08:00] Senate
[1:08:00] Are they
[1:08:01] allowed
[1:08:02] to
[1:08:02] submit
[1:08:02] letter
[1:08:03] na
[1:08:03] magiging
[1:08:03] saib
[1:08:04] nila
[1:08:04] during
[1:08:05] the
[1:08:05] impeachment
[1:08:05] trial
[1:08:06] If
[1:08:08] we
[1:08:08] will
[1:08:08] be
[1:08:08] following
[1:08:09] strictly
[1:08:09] the
[1:08:09] provisions
[1:08:10] of
[1:08:10] the
[1:08:10] Plunder
[1:08:11] Law
[1:08:11] and
[1:08:11] R.A.3019
[1:08:12] while
[1:08:14] there
[1:08:14] is
[1:08:15] the
[1:08:15] suspension
[1:08:15] they
[1:08:16] are
[1:08:16] not
[1:08:16] considered
[1:08:17] as
[1:08:17] members
[1:08:17] of
[1:08:18] the
[1:08:18] Senate
[1:08:18] Another
[1:08:21] question
[1:08:21] regarding
[1:08:22] magiging
[1:08:23] presiding
[1:08:23] officer
[1:08:24] ng
[1:08:24] Senate
[1:08:25] may
[1:08:26] nagsasuggest
[1:08:27] pong
[1:08:27] senador
[1:08:27] na
[1:08:28] dapat
[1:08:28] abogado
[1:08:29] it's
[1:08:29] actually
[1:08:30] according
[1:08:30] to
[1:08:31] senator
[1:08:31] ping
[1:08:31] laxon
[1:08:32] passive
[1:08:33] kung
[1:08:34] sakali
[1:08:35] raw
[1:08:35] pwede
[1:08:35] maging
[1:08:35] presiding
[1:08:36] officer
[1:08:36] si
[1:08:36] senator
[1:08:37] kiko
[1:08:38] panginilan
[1:08:38] ng
[1:08:38] chise
[1:08:39] scudero
[1:08:39] so
[1:08:40] tingin
[1:08:40] nyo
[1:08:40] po
[1:08:40] mas
[1:08:40] mabuti
[1:08:41] bang
[1:08:41] maging
[1:08:41] abogado
[1:08:42] amin
[1:08:43] abogado
[1:08:43] ang
[1:08:43] presiding
[1:08:44] officer
[1:08:44] in
[1:08:46] all
[1:08:47] honesty
[1:08:47] I
[1:08:48] don't
[1:08:48] see
[1:08:48] anything
[1:08:48] wrong
[1:08:49] about
[1:08:50] having
[1:08:50] a
[1:08:51] presiding
[1:08:51] officer
[1:08:52] who
[1:08:52] is
[1:08:52] a
[1:08:52] non
[1:08:52] lawyer
[1:08:53] like
[1:08:54] our
[1:08:54] acting
[1:08:55] SP
[1:08:55] wing
[1:08:56] gachalian
[1:08:57] let
[1:08:58] us
[1:08:58] remember
[1:08:58] that
[1:08:59] the
[1:08:59] impeachment
[1:08:59] trial
[1:09:00] is
[1:09:00] not
[1:09:00] purely
[1:09:01] a
[1:09:02] legal
[1:09:02] process
[1:09:03] it
[1:09:03] is
[1:09:03] sui
[1:09:04] generis
[1:09:04] in
[1:09:05] one
[1:09:06] way
[1:09:06] it
[1:09:06] is
[1:09:07] constitutional
[1:09:07] in
[1:09:08] another
[1:09:08] way
[1:09:09] it
[1:09:09] is
[1:09:09] administrative
[1:09:10] and
[1:09:11] in
[1:09:11] another
[1:09:12] way
[1:09:12] as
[1:09:12] well
[1:09:13] it
[1:09:13] is
[1:09:13] legal
[1:09:13] what
[1:09:14] is
[1:09:14] important
[1:09:15] is
[1:09:15] for
[1:09:16] us
[1:09:16] to
[1:09:16] be
[1:09:16] able
[1:09:17] to
[1:09:17] ferret
[1:09:17] out
[1:09:17] the
[1:09:18] truth
[1:09:18] which
[1:09:19] means
[1:09:20] that
[1:09:20] the
[1:09:21] evidence
[1:09:22] must
[1:09:22] be
[1:09:23] given
[1:09:23] ample
[1:09:24] opportunity
[1:09:24] to
[1:09:25] be
[1:09:25] presented
[1:09:26] and
[1:09:26] if
[1:09:27] we
[1:09:27] will
[1:09:27] always
[1:09:27] be
[1:09:27] challenged
[1:09:28] by
[1:09:28] rules
[1:09:28] on
[1:09:29] technicalities
[1:09:30] rules
[1:09:30] on
[1:09:31] procedure
[1:09:31] objections
[1:09:32] to
[1:09:33] the
[1:09:33] evidence
[1:09:33] which
[1:09:34] are
[1:09:34] being
[1:09:34] presented
[1:09:35] it
[1:09:35] might
[1:09:36] defeat
[1:09:36] the
[1:09:36] purpose
[1:09:37] of
[1:09:37] this
[1:09:37] impeachment
[1:09:38] trial
[1:09:38] remember
[1:09:39] that
[1:09:39] what
[1:09:40] we
[1:09:40] are
[1:09:40] testing
[1:09:40] here
[1:09:41] is
[1:09:41] the
[1:09:42] fitness
[1:09:42] of
[1:09:43] the
[1:09:43] public
[1:09:43] official
[1:09:44] to
[1:09:44] continue
[1:09:45] holding
[1:09:45] office
[1:09:46] and
[1:09:46] not
[1:09:46] the
[1:09:47] criminal
[1:09:48] liability
[1:09:48] not
[1:09:49] the
[1:09:50] civil
[1:09:50] liability
[1:09:51] diba
[1:09:51] and
[1:09:52] sabi nga
[1:09:53] after
[1:09:53] the
[1:09:54] decision
[1:09:54] on
[1:09:55] this
[1:09:55] impeachment
[1:09:55] trial
[1:09:56] they
[1:09:57] can
[1:09:57] still
[1:09:57] be
[1:09:57] held
[1:09:58] liable
[1:09:58] for
[1:09:58] prosecution
[1:09:59] to
[1:10:00] whatever
[1:10:00] cases
[1:10:01] may be
[1:10:01] filed
[1:10:01] against
[1:10:02] them
[1:10:02] last
[1:10:03] last
[1:10:03] last
[1:10:03] question
[1:10:04] for
[1:10:04] me
[1:10:04] regarding
[1:10:06] additional
[1:10:07] evidence
[1:10:08] which
[1:10:09] is
[1:10:09] regarding
[1:10:09] undeclared
[1:10:11] property
[1:10:12] before
[1:10:14] sinasabi
[1:10:14] natin
[1:10:15] overwhelming
[1:10:15] evidence
[1:10:17] during the
[1:10:18] house
[1:10:18] committee
[1:10:18] on
[1:10:18] justice
[1:10:19] hearing
[1:10:19] can
[1:10:20] we
[1:10:20] say
[1:10:20] ba
[1:10:21] na
[1:10:21] mas
[1:10:21] mabigat
[1:10:22] itong
[1:10:22] bagong
[1:10:22] ebidensia
[1:10:23] that's
[1:10:23] why
[1:10:24] dinagdag
[1:10:25] natin
[1:10:25] itong
[1:10:25] evidence
[1:10:26] ito
[1:10:26] sa list
[1:10:27] of
[1:10:27] evidence
[1:10:27] against
[1:10:28] the
[1:10:28] vice
[1:10:29] president
[1:10:29] I
[1:10:31] said
[1:10:32] a while
[1:10:33] ago
[1:10:33] that
[1:10:33] the
[1:10:34] reason
[1:10:34] why
[1:10:35] we
[1:10:36] added
[1:10:36] names
[1:10:38] to the
[1:10:38] list
[1:10:38] of
[1:10:39] witnesses
[1:10:39] documents
[1:10:41] to the
[1:10:42] list
[1:10:42] of
[1:10:42] exhibits
[1:10:43] is
[1:10:43] because
[1:10:43] of
[1:10:44] the
[1:10:44] rule
[1:10:44] that
[1:10:46] witnesses
[1:10:46] and
[1:10:48] exhibits
[1:10:49] which
[1:10:50] are
[1:10:50] not
[1:10:50] included
[1:10:51] in
[1:10:51] the
[1:10:51] pretrial
[1:10:51] brief
[1:10:52] will
[1:10:53] not
[1:10:53] be
[1:10:53] allowed
[1:10:54] to
[1:10:54] be
[1:10:54] presented
[1:10:54] during
[1:10:55] the
[1:10:55] trial
[1:10:55] so
[1:10:56] it's
[1:10:57] not
[1:10:57] a
[1:10:57] question
[1:10:58] of
[1:10:58] probative
[1:10:59] value
[1:11:00] or
[1:11:01] weight
[1:11:01] of
[1:11:01] the
[1:11:01] evidence
[1:11:02] it
[1:11:02] is
[1:11:03] a
[1:11:03] question
[1:11:03] of
[1:11:03] inclusion
[1:11:04] of
[1:11:05] all
[1:11:06] the
[1:11:06] witnesses
[1:11:06] and
[1:11:07] evidence
[1:11:07] to
[1:11:08] make
[1:11:08] sure
[1:11:08] that
[1:11:09] we
[1:11:09] will
[1:11:09] be
[1:11:09] allowed
[1:11:10] to
[1:11:10] present
[1:11:10] them
[1:11:10] during
[1:11:11] the
[1:11:11] trial
[1:11:11] Thank you
[1:11:15] Isaiah
[1:11:17] Next
[1:11:19] is
[1:11:19] Isa
[1:11:22] Bendano
[1:11:22] Mali
[1:11:23] of
[1:11:23] DC
[1:11:23] BB
[1:11:24] Magandang
[1:11:26] hapon po
[1:11:27] Isa
[1:11:27] Mali
[1:11:28] po
[1:11:28] First
[1:11:29] question
[1:11:29] lang
[1:11:29] po
[1:11:29] kasi
[1:11:30] naga
[1:11:30] anunsyo
[1:11:31] na po
[1:11:31] yung
[1:11:31] Malacanang
[1:11:32] inuutos
[1:11:32] na po
[1:11:33] ni
[1:11:33] President
[1:11:33] Marcos
[1:11:34] yung
[1:11:34] special
[1:11:35] session
[1:11:35] ng
[1:11:35] Congress
[1:11:36] on
[1:11:37] June
[1:11:37] 17
[1:11:38] yung
[1:11:38] House
[1:11:39] of
[1:11:39] Representatives
[1:11:39] mayroon
[1:11:40] mga
[1:11:40] target
[1:11:41] pang
[1:11:41] gagawin
[1:11:42] or
[1:11:42] tatapusing
[1:11:43] mga
[1:11:43] trabaho
[1:11:43] thank you
[1:11:44] pa
[1:11:44] well
[1:11:52] on
[1:11:52] the
[1:11:53] ordinary
[1:11:55] committee
[1:11:56] hearings
[1:11:57] ongoing
[1:11:57] pa
[1:11:58] naman
[1:11:58] eh
[1:11:58] in
[1:11:58] fact
[1:11:59] today
[1:11:59] ang
[1:12:00] committee
[1:12:00] on
[1:12:00] education
[1:12:01] is
[1:12:02] holding
[1:12:02] a
[1:12:02] committee
[1:12:02] hearing
[1:12:03] so
[1:12:03] tuloy-tuloy
[1:12:03] naman
[1:12:04] po
[1:12:04] yan
[1:12:04] since
[1:12:05] since
[1:12:05] you
[1:12:05] ask
[1:12:07] about
[1:12:07] yung
[1:12:08] trabaho
[1:12:08] we
[1:12:09] have
[1:12:09] already
[1:12:09] delivered
[1:12:10] out
[1:12:11] of
[1:12:11] the
[1:12:11] 50
[1:12:12] led
[1:12:13] priorities
[1:12:14] we
[1:12:14] were
[1:12:14] able
[1:12:14] to
[1:12:15] pass
[1:12:15] on
[1:12:16] third
[1:12:16] and
[1:12:16] final
[1:12:17] reading
[1:12:17] 20
[1:12:19] plus
[1:12:19] 26
[1:12:21] 26
[1:12:21] so
[1:12:22] half
[1:12:22] of
[1:12:23] the
[1:12:23] led
[1:12:23] priority
[1:12:24] so
[1:12:24] if
[1:12:25] there's
[1:12:25] if
[1:12:26] the
[1:12:26] if
[1:12:27] malacan
[1:12:27] yang
[1:12:27] request
[1:12:28] for
[1:12:28] a
[1:12:28] special
[1:12:28] session
[1:12:29] we
[1:12:29] anticipate
[1:12:29] and
[1:12:30] we
[1:12:30] welcome
[1:12:30] that
[1:12:32] and
[1:12:33] kayo
[1:12:33] po
[1:12:33] sa
[1:12:33] part
[1:12:34] po
[1:12:34] ng
[1:12:34] house
[1:12:35] hoping
[1:12:35] din
[1:12:35] po
[1:12:35] ba
[1:12:35] kayo
[1:12:36] na
[1:12:36] dun
[1:12:36] sa
[1:12:36] special
[1:12:37] session
[1:12:37] na yon
[1:12:38] mapa
[1:12:38] plan
[1:12:39] siya
[1:12:39] na po
[1:12:39] yung
[1:12:39] gusot
[1:12:40] sa
[1:12:40] senado
[1:12:40] as
[1:12:43] far
[1:12:44] as
[1:12:44] the
[1:12:44] house
[1:12:44] is
[1:12:44] concerned
[1:12:45] you
[1:12:46] know
[1:12:47] we
[1:12:47] we
[1:12:49] again
[1:12:49] we
[1:12:50] maintain
[1:12:50] our
[1:12:50] institutional
[1:12:51] respect
[1:12:52] to
[1:12:52] our
[1:12:52] co-equal
[1:12:53] branch
[1:12:53] if
[1:12:53] that
[1:12:54] would
[1:12:54] be
[1:12:54] part
[1:12:54] of
[1:12:55] the
[1:12:55] issues
[1:12:55] that
[1:12:56] they
[1:12:56] need
[1:12:56] to
[1:12:56] settle
[1:12:57] in
[1:12:57] the
[1:12:57] senate
[1:12:57] that
[1:12:57] is
[1:12:58] entirely
[1:12:58] within
[1:12:58] the
[1:12:59] decision
[1:13:00] of
[1:13:00] the
[1:13:00] senate
[1:13:00] but
[1:13:00] I
[1:13:02] also
[1:13:02] would
[1:13:03] expect
[1:13:03] that
[1:13:04] since
[1:13:04] we
[1:13:04] if
[1:13:05] for
[1:13:05] example
[1:13:05] malacanang
[1:13:06] may
[1:13:07] well
[1:13:10] sabi ko
[1:13:20] nga
[1:13:20] yung
[1:13:21] mga
[1:13:21] ledag
[1:13:21] priorities
[1:13:22] na
[1:13:22] tapos
[1:13:23] na
[1:13:23] out
[1:13:24] of
[1:13:24] the
[1:13:24] 26
[1:13:24] so
[1:13:25] natapos
[1:13:26] na po
[1:13:26] natin
[1:13:26] na
[1:13:27] transmit
[1:13:27] po
[1:13:27] natin
[1:13:27] yung
[1:13:28] sa
[1:13:28] senate
[1:13:29] yung
[1:13:30] anti
[1:13:30] political
[1:13:30] dynasty
[1:13:31] x
[1:13:32] act
[1:13:32] amendments
[1:13:33] to the
[1:13:33] universal
[1:13:34] access
[1:13:34] to
[1:13:35] quality
[1:13:36] tertiary
[1:13:37] education
[1:13:38] so
[1:13:39] if
[1:13:40] there
[1:13:40] will
[1:13:40] be
[1:13:40] a
[1:13:41] special
[1:13:41] session
[1:13:42] again
[1:13:42] if
[1:13:44] we
[1:13:44] ask
[1:13:44] us
[1:13:44] dun
[1:13:45] sa
[1:13:45] senate
[1:13:46] leadership
[1:13:46] issue
[1:13:47] that's
[1:13:47] entirely
[1:13:48] for
[1:13:48] the
[1:13:48] senate
[1:13:48] to
[1:13:48] decide
[1:13:49] but
[1:13:50] we
[1:13:50] anticipate
[1:13:50] that
[1:13:51] they
[1:13:51] should
[1:13:51] take
[1:13:51] that
[1:13:52] opportunity
[1:13:52] to
[1:13:53] finally
[1:13:53] settle
[1:13:53] the
[1:13:54] issue
[1:13:55] on
[1:13:55] leadership
[1:13:56] lead
[1:13:59] prosecutor
[1:13:59] to
[1:14:00] your
[1:14:01] question
[1:14:01] we
[1:14:01] can
[1:14:02] only
[1:14:02] hope
[1:14:02] and
[1:14:02] pray
[1:14:03] no
[1:14:03] but
[1:14:04] that
[1:14:04] is
[1:14:04] of
[1:14:05] course
[1:14:05] the
[1:14:05] prerogative
[1:14:06] and
[1:14:06] judgment
[1:14:06] that
[1:14:07] exclusively
[1:14:07] belongs
[1:14:08] to
[1:14:08] the
[1:14:08] senate
[1:14:09] we
[1:14:09] cannot
[1:14:10] meddle
[1:14:10] on
[1:14:11] the
[1:14:11] issues
[1:14:11] of
[1:14:11] their
[1:14:12] leadership
[1:14:12] but
[1:14:13] we
[1:14:13] hope
[1:14:14] and
[1:14:14] pray
[1:14:14] that
[1:14:15] they
[1:14:15] will
[1:14:15] be
[1:14:15] able
[1:14:15] to
[1:14:16] fix
[1:14:16] it
[1:14:16] on
[1:14:16] the
[1:14:17] occasion
[1:14:17] of
[1:14:17] this
[1:14:17] special
[1:14:18] session
[1:14:18] another
[1:14:20] pa
[1:14:20] po
[1:14:21] na
[1:14:22] announced
[1:14:22] na po
[1:14:23] yung
[1:14:23] first
[1:14:23] batch
[1:14:24] ng
[1:14:24] private
[1:14:24] prosecutors
[1:14:25] so
[1:14:25] when
[1:14:26] po
[1:14:26] namin
[1:14:26] maasahan
[1:14:27] yung
[1:14:27] second
[1:14:28] batch
[1:14:28] at
[1:14:29] patuloy
[1:14:29] pa rin
[1:14:29] po
[1:14:29] ba
[1:14:30] kasi
[1:14:30] may
[1:14:30] mga
[1:14:31] nagsasabi
[1:14:31] na
[1:14:31] dinadag
[1:14:32] sa
[1:14:32] kayo
[1:14:33] ng
[1:14:33] mga
[1:14:34] nag
[1:14:34] apply
[1:14:34] nag
[1:14:35] audition
[1:14:35] na
[1:14:36] maging
[1:14:36] prosecutor
[1:14:37] so
[1:14:37] yun
[1:14:37] po
[1:14:38] kailan
[1:14:38] po
[1:14:38] namin
[1:14:38] maasahan
[1:14:39] yung
[1:14:39] second
[1:14:39] batch
[1:14:39] to
[1:14:40] to
[1:14:40] to
[1:14:40] naman
[1:14:41] yun
[1:14:41] the
[1:14:42] private
[1:14:42] prosecutors
[1:14:43] keep
[1:14:43] on
[1:14:43] coming
[1:14:44] to
[1:14:45] join
[1:14:45] the
[1:14:45] impeachment
[1:14:46] team
[1:14:47] and
[1:14:48] we're
[1:14:48] happy
[1:14:48] about
[1:14:48] that
[1:14:49] because
[1:14:49] that
[1:14:49] is
[1:14:50] a
[1:14:50] validation
[1:14:50] that
[1:14:51] even
[1:14:52] private
[1:14:52] lawyers
[1:14:53] mga
[1:14:53] abogato
[1:14:54] de
[1:14:54] campanilla
[1:14:55] believe
[1:14:56] in the
[1:14:56] cause
[1:14:56] of
[1:14:56] the
[1:14:57] house
[1:14:57] of
[1:14:57] representatives
[1:14:58] they
[1:14:59] are
[1:14:59] joining
[1:14:59] us
[1:14:59] in
[1:14:59] our
[1:15:00] stand
[1:15:00] to
[1:15:01] to
[1:15:02] protect
[1:15:02] and
[1:15:02] preserve
[1:15:03] and
[1:15:03] enforce
[1:15:04] this
[1:15:04] accountability
[1:15:05] mechanism
[1:15:06] no
[1:15:06] so
[1:15:07] to
[1:15:07] your
[1:15:07] question
[1:15:08] let us
[1:15:09] see
[1:15:09] this
[1:15:10] week
[1:15:10] if
[1:15:10] we can
[1:15:11] introduce
[1:15:12] the next
[1:15:12] batch
[1:15:13] but
[1:15:13] definitely
[1:15:14] all of
[1:15:14] them
[1:15:15] will
[1:15:15] be
[1:15:15] introduced
[1:15:15] before
[1:15:16] we
[1:15:16] start
[1:15:16] our
[1:15:17] trial
[1:15:17] on
[1:15:17] July
[1:15:18] 6
[1:15:18] and
[1:15:19] last
[1:15:19] question
[1:15:20] how are you?
[1:15:22] because
[1:15:23] you are
[1:15:24] three
[1:15:24] because
[1:15:27] we have
[1:15:29] talked
[1:15:30] about
[1:15:31] impeachment
[1:15:31] I'm sure
[1:15:33] there are
[1:15:33] personal
[1:15:34] challenges
[1:15:35] but
[1:15:36] what
[1:15:38] you have
[1:15:40] to
[1:15:40] do
[1:15:41] you have
[1:15:42] to
[1:15:42] do
[1:15:42] you have
[1:15:44] to
[1:15:45] do
[1:15:46] the
[1:15:46] impeachment
[1:15:47] thank you
[1:15:48] for
[1:15:48] the only
[1:15:48] challenge
[1:15:49] that I
[1:15:49] have
[1:15:50] is
[1:15:50] I do
[1:15:51] not
[1:15:51] have
[1:15:51] anymore
[1:15:52] the luxury
[1:15:53] of time
[1:15:53] of moving
[1:15:54] around
[1:15:54] my
[1:15:55] district
[1:15:55] that I
[1:16:03] cannot
[1:16:04] do
[1:16:04] now
[1:16:04] because
[1:16:05] I
[1:16:05] need
[1:16:05] to
[1:16:05] focus
[1:16:06] to
[1:16:07] our
[1:16:07] preparation
[1:16:08] for
[1:16:08] this
[1:16:08] impeachment
[1:16:09] trial
[1:16:09] nonetheless
[1:16:10] I
[1:16:11] thank you
[1:16:12] for
[1:16:12] my
[1:16:13] women
[1:16:14] from
[1:16:15] Batangas
[1:16:15] 2nd
[1:16:15] district
[1:16:16] I
[1:16:16] know
[1:16:17] until
[1:16:19] this
[1:16:20] impeachment
[1:16:20] trial
[1:16:21] is
[1:16:21] concluded
[1:16:22] and
[1:16:22] the
[1:16:23] reaction
[1:16:23] is
[1:16:23] very
[1:16:24] much
[1:16:24] positive
[1:16:25] what
[1:16:26] accountability
[1:16:31] mechanism
[1:16:31] is all
[1:16:32] about
[1:16:32] as well
[1:16:33] as
[1:16:33] the
[1:16:33] significance
[1:16:34] of the
[1:16:35] constitutional
[1:16:35] mandate
[1:16:36] for this
[1:16:36] impeachment
[1:16:37] process
[1:16:38] actually
[1:16:46] I
[1:16:46] think
[1:16:47] I can
[1:16:47] speak
[1:16:47] for
[1:16:48] everyone
[1:16:49] here
[1:16:49] the
[1:16:50] volume
[1:16:51] of
[1:16:51] attacks
[1:16:52] and
[1:16:53] misinformation
[1:16:54] that
[1:16:55] thrown
[1:16:56] our
[1:16:56] way
[1:16:57] but
[1:16:59] these
[1:16:59] are
[1:16:59] part
[1:17:00] of
[1:17:00] the
[1:17:00] strategy
[1:17:01] of
[1:17:02] those
[1:17:02] who
[1:17:02] are
[1:17:03] against
[1:17:03] accountability
[1:17:04] those
[1:17:05] who
[1:17:05] are
[1:17:05] against
[1:17:06] our
[1:17:08] job
[1:17:08] against
[1:17:10] the
[1:17:11] members
[1:17:11] of the
[1:17:12] House
[1:17:12] Prosecutor
[1:17:12] Panel
[1:17:13] to
[1:17:14] exercise
[1:17:14] their
[1:17:15] duly
[1:17:15] mandated
[1:17:16] constitutional
[1:17:16] directive
[1:17:17] to
[1:17:18] proceed
[1:17:18] with
[1:17:19] the
[1:17:19] impeachment
[1:17:20] these
[1:17:21] are
[1:17:21] part
[1:17:22] of
[1:17:22] their
[1:17:22] effort
[1:17:23] to
[1:17:24] probably
[1:17:24] silence
[1:17:25] us
[1:17:25] to
[1:17:26] scare
[1:17:27] us
[1:17:27] away
[1:17:27] but
[1:17:30] you
[1:17:32] on
[1:17:33] you
[1:17:33] task
[1:17:33] to
[1:17:34] have
[1:17:36] vote
[1:17:36] the
[1:17:37] way
[1:17:38] because
[1:17:39] we
[1:17:39] stand
[1:17:39] behind
[1:17:40] we
[1:17:40] stand
[1:17:41] in
[1:17:41] front
[1:17:41] side
[1:17:42] by
[1:17:42] side
[1:17:42] with
[1:17:43] the
[1:17:43] Constitution
[1:17:44] this
[1:17:45] is a
[1:17:45] constitutional
[1:17:45] duty
[1:17:46] that we
[1:17:46] need
[1:17:46] to
[1:17:46] perform
[1:17:47] so
[1:17:48] no matter that the volume of fake news attacks against us we will not we will
[1:17:57] not be silenced and we will continue on we will soldier soldier on thank you
[1:18:07] very much for your concern you know it's actually very tiring for us for for the
[1:18:26] prosecutors for the comms for the for our talking heads to be part of this whole
[1:18:33] process compared to our colleagues in Congress but no but as prosecutors and
[1:18:44] the comms also the talking heads are have been studying actually non-stop since
[1:18:51] January when the impeachment complaints were filed to literally pop and now even
[1:18:57] during weekends we have to study as prosecutors in fact all bought the
[1:19:03] same material same same books so that we could read all of them
[1:19:09] bumalik po kami sa law school meron po kaming highlighters nagbabasa po kami araw araw and
[1:19:14] that's what's been that's what we've been doing lately so yes nabawasan po ang oras
[1:19:23] namin sa distrito ako nabawasan ng konti ang pag alaga ko ng aking one and only son and
[1:19:34] hindi ko na natutukan ng kanyang lessons lalo na nung towards the end of school and
[1:19:40] ngayon start na naman but you know we always say that we're doing this for
[1:19:46] accountability for the country and we know that we will all see it through and
[1:19:52] and kaya po na lagi namin sinasabi para po sa bayan ito maraming salamat po salamat
[1:20:01] isa susunod si willie delgado from prtb ah magandang hapon ah um during
[1:20:14] impeachment ni ah dating pangulong joseph estrada ah si attorney joseph flaminiano
[1:20:24] ano ang naging trabaho niya objection objection may ananticipate ba kayong ganito since ah
[1:20:30] hindi naman direct ang sumagot sa mga articles si vice president sarah duterte at kung meron
[1:20:36] man ah hindi ho ba medyo may hirapan since ang tatayong presiding officer eh hindi abogado ah who can
[1:20:45] determine kung tama o hindi yung objections kung inaanticipate namin yung
[1:20:51] objections definitely because that is part of the rules on presentation of evidence meron tayong rules on
[1:20:59] admissibility competency no and these are grounds of objection that is innate in every presentation of
[1:21:09] evidence now to your question kung mahihirapan ho ba ang presiding officer who is a non-lawyer
[1:21:16] that is the point when I said earlier that this should be substance over technicalities because this is
[1:21:24] not a purely legal case therefore dapat a relax and technicalities to pave way in ferreting out the truth
[1:21:34] because what is important in this trial is to be able to show kung ano ang totoong pangyarayari which will
[1:21:42] guide our senator judges in deciding whether to convict or to acquit um dun po sa threshold kung
[1:21:55] bababa ah yung numbers na magko convict makakasama din ho ba dyan yung mag-acquit yung number na mag-acquit
[1:22:03] i think the constitutional provision is on the conviction only no so any occasion which will not
[1:22:22] result to two-thirds of all the members of the senate should result to acquit um regardless of the
[1:22:29] number regardless of the number basta hindi mo maabot ang two-thirds of all the members of the senate
[1:22:38] regardless of how we interpret all no basta hindi mo siya maabot that is automatic acquit um
[1:22:47] all right um kaya kung siya yung yung idea na gumamit siyang local dialect kasama rin ho ba yung
[1:22:56] possible na idea na even dun sa mga may hearing impaired isama rin para maindindihan nila i think we
[1:23:06] have to be more inclusive deba this is for the nation this is for the people this is for our country so
[1:23:12] everyone all sectors not only language barrier but even those who have difficulty expressing
[1:23:19] themselves through a spoken language no yes one last point magpapatawag po yata na special session
[1:23:28] ng pangulong bbm sa june 17 any comment any reaction well we understand that the purpose of the palace is to
[1:23:41] give opportunity to the senate to finish the priority measures which kong siya mentioned already the ledak
[1:23:49] measures though i can state for the record na itong lahat ng ito i approve on third reading na
[1:23:58] transmitted na ng house of representatives to the senate so for that to be able to become lost by way of
[1:24:06] action of the executive or the president dapat gumawa din ang senado so that's what i read from the
[1:24:13] notice of the office of the president about this special session to be held on june 17 now now with
[1:24:23] regards to the issue on leadership this is just our our opinion that sana they take advantage of that
[1:24:32] special session to address what needs to be addressed to fix what needs to be fixed no and ultimately to
[1:24:39] have a duly elected senate president thank you really marian enriquez from tb5
[1:24:48] ma'am para sa inyo ah kasi po you were saying ah yung gustot po sa senate kung adyong was saying
[1:24:58] that's entirely for the senate to decide kung louis trio said we can only hope and pray but you've already
[1:25:05] emphasized several times po yung significance ng constitutional mandate ng senado and you also
[1:25:11] mentioned earlier na you hope magkaroon na sana ng julie elected senate president kasi the reason
[1:25:17] we are apprehensive we might encounter another constitutional issue we will be starting the
[1:25:22] trial and there is no julie elected senate president so gano po baka importante na hindi lang po we
[1:25:28] we you know it's up for the senate na dapat iprioritize po nila yung pag-e-elect ng julie
[1:25:34] pre-elected senate president before even yung pre-trial po ay mag-umpisa the reason why we are only
[1:25:43] expressing our position on the matter is because the doctrine of political question applies to the senate
[1:25:51] matters concerning the power which is exclusive to the senate so long as there is no issue of grave abuse
[1:26:00] of discretion and lack of jurisdiction is a non-justiciable issue kung non-justiciable
[1:26:07] siya hindi pwedeng pakialman ng supreme court lalo na hindi namin pwedeng pakialaman this falls within
[1:26:15] the exclusive purview of the philippine senate that's why ang kaya lang namin gawin is to express
[1:26:24] our position about what i perceived as irregularities happening in the senate now now you're asking how
[1:26:34] important is this this is important because impeachment trial is a constitutional mandate
[1:26:42] we have witnessed already what happened in the first impeachment that was during the 19th congress
[1:26:49] while almost all the members of the house of representatives are of the opinion that the
[1:26:56] process was legal valid legitimate but nonetheless it went on with the supreme court declaring its
[1:27:07] unconstitutionality no and it is because of issues like the lack of notice and hearing before transmitting the
[1:27:18] articles of the articles of impeachment to the senate which is not even mentioned in the rules of
[1:27:24] impeachment of the house of representatives neither in the constitution and yet because of due process
[1:27:32] the supreme court resolved that the articles of impeachment and the proceeding are unconstitutional
[1:27:39] no now we will be proceeding to the schedule of our impeachment trial we understand that
[1:27:47] the head of the senate is a senate president and based on the rules if the impeachable official is not
[1:27:57] the president they are the presiding officer that is before the current leadership change that into
[1:28:07] allowing the senate to elect a presiding officer other than the senate president no which means that this is a
[1:28:15] very significant position in as far as impeachment trial is concerned no while we duly recognize the
[1:28:23] legitimacy of the current leadership because of the sanctity solemnity and sensitivity of this impeachment trial
[1:28:34] it is best that we address that need of electing a senate president before we actually start but nevertheless let me
[1:28:46] state for the record as well we're submitting to the jurisdiction and authority of the impeachment court
[1:28:53] if they refuse to elect and they proceed to having the trial we will appear and do our mandate of presenting
[1:29:02] the evidence in the evidence in behalf of the institution so just for the record uh the prosecution believe
[1:29:07] that uh kailangan nga po iprioritize the senate should prioritize electing a duly elected senate president
[1:29:14] yes sapagkat nakita nyo naman dito palang sa house of representatives they raise as an issue the referral from
[1:29:24] plenary to justice committee they even raised violation of one year bar rule diba what else did they raise they
[1:29:33] raised as well that we have predetermined the impeachment complaints even before the clarificatory
[1:29:40] the whole clarificatory hearing in the in the justice committee they're also invoking the confidentiality
[1:29:48] in their allegation that we violated the confidentiality provision of amlock in spite of the clear
[1:29:54] exception in the bank secrecy law and the fact that the subject matter of the amlock report are bank reports
[1:30:00] di ba so what else will they not elevate to the supreme court kung ito dinadala nila sa supreme
[1:30:09] court we have anticipation we have basis to believe that even the irregularity in the leadership may be
[1:30:19] considered by the defense in elevating another constitutional question before the supreme court and
[1:30:27] then then for yung avilino doctrine tingin nyo po sapat na yung kunyari 22 12 yung while and sabi
[1:30:36] sa avilino doctrine no non-justiciable din ito but considering that there is an express provision in the
[1:30:43] constitution two-thirds of all i think this time when we interpret the threshold for the purpose of
[1:30:49] conviction tingin ko lang papasok ang supreme court no but for electing a senate president for electing a
[1:30:58] senate president the avilino doctrine should apply also di ba kasi in determining the threshold we must
[1:31:05] first determine the number of members of the senate who are within the coercive means of the institution no so
[1:31:15] pag gumalao yung determination natin ang number within the coercive means gagalaw ang quorum gagalaw ang
[1:31:23] threshold i think uh just to in addition to that no i think what this is how i surmise the explanation of
[1:31:30] our lead counts uh council uh consulman jinky i think it's to the advantage of the senate if for the practical
[1:31:38] purposes they have already settled the issue of leadership kasi what we anticipate probably in this has been
[1:31:45] asked uh to congresswoman jinky earlier we anticipate that there will be technicalities
[1:31:52] that they may use in order to probably delay the most important uh constitutionally mandated job of
[1:31:59] the senate now which is to proceed with the impeachment trial so they will probably those who are opposed
[1:32:05] to the impeachment trial might probably uh use all possible means in order to delay that and one of
[1:32:12] which as we've seen in the early in this development and when it comes to senate leadership questioning
[1:32:19] the technicality or the legitimacy of the acting senate president so we want that resolved not just
[1:32:25] for the house prosecution team not just for the entire filipino nation for the impeachment trial to
[1:32:31] proceed but for the practical sense that the senate has already resolved the issue of leadership
[1:32:41] thank you let us now recognize uh pb and gulia from channel two uh good afternoon
[1:32:50] po uh clarification balik po ako dito sa isasamit po ninyon pre-trial briefs today you mentioned over 30
[1:32:57] witnesses um is it less than 40. ilan po dito yung hostile witnesses if you can provide us by over 30 any number
[1:33:07] beyond 30. malapit na konti na lang you will know and hostile you can anticipate already that this will be
[1:33:21] officials either from ovp or dep ed no i think most of them you've seen already in the inquiry and aid of
[1:33:30] legislation by the committee on good government and public accountability then presided by chair joel
[1:33:37] chuwa back in the 19th congress dun sa order of presentation um for soundbite purposes lang po
[1:33:45] ano yung naging basis po ninyo for that order of presentation na is nilagay po ninyo sa pre-trial briefs
[1:33:55] well our consideration is one is yung interest ng mga tao that's one di ba two yung dami ng
[1:34:05] ebedensya and three yung significance sa ating national government but safe to say hindi yung order
[1:34:19] not necessarily sa ating articles of impeachment our article one is confidential fund article two is
[1:34:30] unexplained wealth article three is bribery and article four is threat definitely the presentation will be
[1:34:40] different are you mentioned canina that the avellino the the sc decision on the avellino case should
[1:34:49] also apply in the threshold for a conviction will the prosecution make that motion before the
[1:34:54] impeachment we will have to talk about that no hindi pa namin a pag-upa no pag-usapan yan as a team
[1:35:00] although i understand if when i am watching their interviews it seems to me that the team shares the
[1:35:07] same opinion but are you open to it yes we can definitely discuss it among ourselves and perhaps
[1:35:16] come up with our one position with respect to the question and threshold for the purpose of conviction
[1:35:23] and then ma'am on the perception that case possibly mag file na lang na mga reklamo
[1:35:29] against senators who are perceived to be allies of the vice president to lower the threshold what can you say
[1:35:34] about that ang alam ko even before this impeachment trial members of the then majority now minority really
[1:35:45] have issues concerning graph and corruption or plunder no so i do not subscribe to the belief that the
[1:35:56] reason why there are fighting of cases is because of the impeachment because the truth of the matter is
[1:36:02] may kasuna sila bago pa ang impeachment na ito how about on the perception that the avelino case
[1:36:11] refers to the legislative functions of the senate and this is impeachment trial so so we generis as we
[1:36:19] have always mentioned well if it will be considered as function of the senate which means it is it falls
[1:36:30] within the purview of their exclusive prerogative it only means that it will be interpreted among
[1:36:37] themselves whether the avelino doctrine will be applied as well in the threshold for the purpose of
[1:36:42] conviction no that but sila yun sila yung mag-resolve the same way na itong issue of leadership
[1:36:49] ay hindi ginalaw ng supreme court because that is a doctrine of political question no but uh this is very
[1:36:56] significant no so kung hindi sila magkasundo i this is just my position i hope na bigyan
[1:37:04] ng pagkakataon ng supreme court may enlighten ang senado about that i think mayroon lang ako i
[1:37:10] add doon no because we're talking about quorum i think ang naging naging isa sa magandang
[1:37:17] dulot ng pagiging house prosecution part ng coms team is that i was started also to research
[1:37:23] no i think meron ng mga meron ng mga ruling supreme court yung halos host versus people versus
[1:37:30] yes yes trilianis versus uh although these are applicable on legis the senate functioning as a
[1:37:37] legislative body sinasabi don they can propose actually but they cannot vote but when it comes
[1:37:42] to the actual impeachment trial let's again go back to the issue of the in the indispensability of the
[1:37:48] presence of a sitting senator judge so yun ang yun ang premise namin papano ka huhusga sa isang
[1:37:55] bagay na hindi mo nakita hindi mo narinig hindi mo nawakan hindi mo actual na narinig sa mga
[1:38:01] testimony ng um ng mga witnesses which again is not opposed to the uh avilino doctrine which is not
[1:38:09] opposed to our position that the senate has to be also functional which is not also opposed to the issue
[1:38:15] that we are trying to brought out na ang constitution it has to go hand in hand with
[1:38:19] the experience of man did the prosecution receive any other communication from the senate or from
[1:38:28] another faction of the senate except from the notice for pre-trial conference none yet wala po
[1:38:35] kaming narireceive neighbor thank you thank you bbm we will now recognize gudea bernardo of d8 tv
[1:38:49] during the conference last week we've mentioned that there is an overwhelming they keep on coming the
[1:38:56] private prosecutors po do we have a specific targeted number kung ilan lang po yung pwedeng sumama
[1:39:01] as a prosecution team and if there is a specific number how are we screening them do we screen them
[1:39:09] ideally uh it should be identical to the number of the public prosecutors remember we are 11 no so ideally
[1:39:20] 11 then young private prosecutors we have introduced 10 already but certainly those who will not be
[1:39:28] entering appearance before the impeachment court will still be part of the team because significant
[1:39:35] yung preparation before trial no so to your question kung paano ba ito dini determine first and foremost
[1:39:47] but they share the same opposition as ours diba second dapat pro bono dahil walang pambayad
[1:39:55] ang mga public prosecutors and third of course we consider the competence and so far from the first
[1:40:01] batch nakita nyo naman lahat abogado de campanilla um private prosecutors who are joining the prosecution team
[1:40:09] last na lang po uh the the next batch will they be introduced before the trial july 6 i will i am inclined to
[1:40:18] introduce all of them before we start the trial thank you thank you judea thank you for waiting red
[1:40:27] mendoza from manila times hi po good afternoon una po muna yun sa mga private prosecutors hindi po
[1:40:36] ba lahat sila mga anti-duterte magalit kay vp sarah kasi halos lahat sila puro mga galit kay vice
[1:40:43] president sarah duterte what's your thoughts po sa mga private prosecutors na lahat po sila
[1:40:49] mga ddh or die-hard duterte haters we have said this before and we will say it again this impeachment
[1:40:59] trial is not about personalities and i think the private prosecutors beyond the personality stand for
[1:41:09] accountability mechanism no hindi ito tungkol kay vice president tungkol ito sa accountability mechanism
[1:41:18] na dapat ipatupad whenever there are airing public official pero sabi po kasi ni attorney capunan sa
[1:41:27] introduction of press release na wag daw maniwala sa press release ni vice president sarah duterte or
[1:41:34] sa kite nano supporters po niya hindi po ba parang kinokontrol nyo ng prosecution yung narrative na
[1:41:40] dapat kayo lang ang pakinggan that's attorney capunan's opinion so she has a right to say whatever she
[1:41:50] wants to say pero do you share that opinion sa prosecution kasi she is part of the private
[1:41:56] prosecution panel na dapat wag makinig kay vp sarah or sa kanyang mga abogado or it is not it is not the
[1:42:04] official stand of the house prosecution team neither would it be the official stand of the
[1:42:09] private prosecution team it is may it is spoken out by a one member of the private prosecutor
[1:42:17] uh a personal opinion which by the way she is entitled to you know we never said that we should
[1:42:24] not listen to vice president sarah duterte or to her lawyers in fact we have been wanting them to speak
[1:42:34] at the committee on justice hearings hindi ba ilang beses pong tinatawag ang pangalan niya
[1:42:40] ilang beses po siyang inimbitahan ilang beses pong hinihintay namin ang kanyang mga pahayag ang
[1:42:46] kanyang ebidensya ang kanyang sagot sa mga allegations sa kanya sa impeachment complaints
[1:42:53] so hindi po tama na sabihin na kinokontrol namin ang naratiba gusto lang po namin in fact gusto
[1:43:02] namin na sila ay magsalita ilabas natin ang aming ebidensya ilabas nila ang kanilang ebidensya
[1:43:09] pero ma'am kasi po sinasay po ng defense team na hindi po sila maglalabas ng ebidensya on the public
[1:43:15] space they want to share the evidence sa loob ng impeachment trial sa loob ng senate kaya
[1:43:22] hindi po sila nagpapatawag or madalang lang po sila magpatawag ng press conferences while
[1:43:27] sa house is almost the same na parang araw or parang may mga release almost every week about the vice
[1:43:34] president and parang andating is the house prosecution is the one controlling the media
[1:43:39] narrative your thoughts po una-una po simula nung nag-convene ng impeachment court wala po kaming
[1:43:45] nilalabas na ebidensya wala po kaming sinasabi about the merits because as we have said we're under
[1:43:52] a subjudice now kung gusto po nilang ilabas lamang sa korte tama naman din po yun dahil subjudice nga
[1:44:02] bawal po kami maglabas ng ebidensya bawal po kami magdiscuss ng merito ng kaso ngayon and in fact
[1:44:10] to their statement that they will just uh release it at the court then that's great
[1:44:17] because we expect them to state their uh uh caught their case and to present their evidence if they
[1:44:25] have evidence red if they choose to remain silent about all of these things that's their business
[1:44:31] but they cannot dictate upon us not to inform the public of every development that is happening
[1:44:38] when it comes to the issue of impeachment because the public deserves to know they deserve clarity
[1:44:43] and they deserve to see the evidence that will be presented in the open court trial that's their
[1:44:49] business if they so decide that they will mom about this issue uh please understand that the house
[1:44:57] representatives in this impeachment trial is representing the sovereign filipino people
[1:45:06] impeachment is a mechanism that was given to the filipino people to go against
[1:45:13] the eric public official in other words the interest which is being represented by us
[1:45:20] in this trial is not our personal interest but the interest of the filipino people suffice it to say
[1:45:29] that we need to share to the people whom we represent what is going on in as far as the preparation for
[1:45:36] the trial is concerned this is the people's right to information that is why we are prompted to update
[1:45:45] from time to time what is happening with regards to the preparation of the prosecutors the people
[1:45:53] are our client here and they need to know the things that the the public prosecutors are doing
[1:46:00] in relation to this trial last alone on my end because it's not a surprise but it's not a surprise
[1:46:23] evidence that you're going to present it in the trial but do you think
[1:46:29] the defense should also be informed of this uh so-called evidence during the pre-trial
[1:46:38] definitely they will be informed because they will be given copy of our pre-trial brief
[1:46:43] in the same way that they will be giving us copy also of their pre-trial brief no so to your question
[1:46:49] whether the defense will be informed definitely yes the defense the defense lawyers and in fact the vice
[1:46:58] president are expected to be there at the pre-trial conference so kung ano man ang nakalagay po sa
[1:47:05] pre-trial brief namin makikita nila yon at sila din po mismo ay kailangan mag-submit din po
[1:47:11] ng kanilang pre-trial brief which we will all discuss at the pre-trial conference on thursday last last
[1:47:18] of course nangyari yung kay president estrada trial the second envelope thing the quote-unquote
[1:47:25] surprise uh second envelope and also the clarisa ocampo surprise witnesses are we expecting
[1:47:33] mga ganitong surpresa like second envelope surprise witness uh prosecution the trial against the vice
[1:47:43] president is entirely different from the strada trial no so we should not be likening this as
[1:47:53] open as possible to the past impeachment processes first and foremost the circumstances surrounding
[1:48:00] the set of facts are entirely different no so there will be no surprises
[1:48:08] sapagad there's a rule that witnesses who are not named in the pre-trial brief exhibits which are
[1:48:15] not marked during the pre-trial will not be allowed to be presented during the trial and of course we
[1:48:21] will not compromise the necessity of uh presenting vital witnesses just to be able to to have some
[1:48:29] surprises during the trial no that will not happen because it will compromise our case so as early as
[1:48:36] during the pre-trial dapat ilalatag na lahat ng testigo dapat ilalatag na lahat ng ebidensya otherwise
[1:48:44] you will not be allowed during the trial to present them and we do not want that to happen thank
[1:48:52] you red as we wrap up today's briefing we invite our distinguished guests to share their short
[1:49:00] closing remarks by way of closing let me mention that today we will be filing our pre-trial brief which
[1:49:19] will contain the stipulation of facts list of witnesses list of documentary exhibits uh proposed
[1:49:27] uh issues proposed trial dates and we will be filing that later before the senate impeachment court
[1:49:39] on thursday will be the pre-trial conference and the public prosecutors as well as the private
[1:49:48] prosecutors will all be attending now as we all understand the media will not be will not be covering
[1:49:59] the pre-trial conference as declared by the senate in their uh notice of uh preliminary conference of
[1:50:09] pre-trial conference but uh we assure you that as long as we are allowed we will update the public of the
[1:50:19] proceedings in the pre-trial uh pre-trial conference that we will be held on thursday
[1:50:26] and uh if uh that is also allowed we will share the pre-trial order that will also be shared with us
[1:50:34] bismillahirrahmanirrahim ah hinihikayat po namin ang ating taong bayan na makilahok makinig at mag update
[1:50:46] po ah patungkol dito sa ha sa impeachment trial na ito laban kay vice presidente sarah duterte tulad
[1:50:54] po nang sinabi ng ating lead council congresswoman jinky luistro ang kliente po ng house prosecution team
[1:51:01] ay ang taong bayan pinag-uusapan po natin dito yung katatagan ng ating constitution na panindigan
[1:51:09] yung mga tao o elite elites ang mga opisyal na may charges na pagkakasala na labag sa ating
[1:51:17] constitution so again uh we are requesting the public to join our call for a uh immediate for the
[1:51:26] proceeding of an immediate open trial of the impeachment court marami pong salamat salam
[1:51:31] alaikum warahmatullahi ta'ala wabarakatuh in addition to the contents of the pre-trial brief
[1:51:38] we want to formalize our discussion also before the impeachment court on whether or not the open
[1:51:43] rule will be adapted the possibility of uh having both filipino and english become part as official
[1:51:53] language to be used during the impeachment trial the position of the house of representatives that we
[1:52:01] we incline we are inclined to lean more on substance rather than technicalities and of course this
[1:52:08] concern about translation to as many dialects as possible eto naman ay paradito sa house we understand
[1:52:15] that the members of the house come from different legislative districts all over the country and
[1:52:22] definitely they are in the best position to realize the objective of having this trial translated into
[1:52:30] as many dialects as possible again we want all the filipino people to be involved in this impeachment
[1:52:37] trial because after all it is their interest that we represent so in conclusion sa buong sambayan
[1:52:45] ng pilipino samahan nyo po kami this impeachment trial is accountability mechanism which is innate in
[1:52:53] democracy samahan nyo po kami sa paggulong ng demokrasya let us uphold the supremacy of the sovereign
[1:53:03] filipino people for the sovereign filipino people for the sovereign filipino people
[1:53:07] para po ito sa lahat ng filipino at sa mga darating pang generasyon
[1:53:13] maraming salamat po ulit house lead prosecutor and committee on justice care person attorney
[1:53:20] gerbil genki betrix loistrop batangas house prosecutor attorney isabel maria bel j zamora of san
[1:53:29] one and house trial spokesperson siya alonto adyong of plano del sur for joining us this afternoon to
[1:53:36] everyone magandang tanghali po sa inyo lahat