Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial DAY 5 — Philippine Senate Hearing LIVE — High-Stakes Showdown

[0:00] counsel for the for the prosecutors we are ready good afternoon your honors i'm attorney marford [0:21] tfua appearing as counsel for the panel of prosecutors good afternoon i'm we are ready [0:27] your honor good afternoon your honors i am attorney erwin g matib respectfully appearing [0:43] as counsel for the prosecutors we are ready good afternoon your honors i'm attorney justine lamarca [0:59] respectfully entering my appearance as counsel for the prosecutors we are ready your honor [1:04] Good afternoon, Your Honors. With respect, James Bryan Ibrahim Ali of PECA Barlo, formerly Ponce and Rile Reyes and Manalastas, [1:19] appearing as counsel for the prosecutors. We're ready to proceed today, Your Honor. [1:33] Good afternoon, Your Honors. I'm attorney Reynaldo Robles of the law firm of Chan Robles and Associates, [1:39] appearing as counsel for the prosecutors under the control and supervision of the public prosecutors. Ready, Your Honor. [1:46] Good afternoon, Your Honors. Bettina Nepomoceno Zamora, respectfully appearing as counsel for prosecutors. We are ready. [2:10] May it please the court attorney Theodore Teh, appearing as counsel and under the control and supervision of the House panel of prosecutors. [2:26] Good afternoon, Your Honors. Attorney Benjamin Siguataloza, Jr., respectfully appearing as counsel for the prosecutors, [2:33] acting under the direct control and supervision. The prosecution is ready, Your Honors. [2:38] No other entry of appearances. That's it. How many in all, Representative Luistro? [2:53] Eleven on the part of the House, insofar as the panel of prosecutors is concerned, and? [2:58] We understand, Your Honor, that only 13 private prosecutors entered their appearance today. [3:04] Nevertheless, Your Honor, as manifested by the Honorable Jokno, [3:08] the written entry of appearance has been filed already with the Honorable Impeachment Court. [3:13] Nevertheless, as they appear or will be participating in the trial, [3:18] kindly inform them to enter their formal appearance during the trial. [3:23] Your Honor, the entire 15 private prosecutors have entered their written, [3:29] have filed already their written entry of appearance with the Impeachment Court. [3:34] The articles of impeachment will be presented by four separate teams, Your Honor. [3:38] That explains why the House prosecutors, or the panel of prosecutors, are joined by 15 private prosecutors, Your Honor. [3:47] Noted. Thank you, ma'am. [3:50] Senator Cayetano, what is the pleasure of the lady from Taguig? [3:54] Yes, Mr. President, I just have a question for the prosecution panel. [3:57] I understand that there is no requirement for the members of the House who form part of the prosecution to be lawyers. [4:04] But may I know if they are all lawyers, and if some are not, may we know who are not lawyers. [4:10] Thank you. [4:11] Your Honor, all the 11 House prosecutors are members of the legal profession. [4:21] Does that satisfy the senator judge? [4:25] Yes, I was just curious, Mr. President, because it's not a requirement, [4:28] so I was just curious if, in fact, they are lawyers. Thank you. [4:31] Julie noted. The response of the lead prosecutor is Julie noted. [4:35] Your Honor, may I just enter a correction to the earlier manifestation? [4:39] The lady may proceed. [4:40] Instead of 13, 14 private prosecutors are able to enter their appearance today. [4:46] Nonetheless, all the 15 have filed their written entry of appearance with the Impeachment Court, Your Honor. [4:53] Noted. Appearances for the respondent. [4:56] Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Sheila Sison, respectfully appearing for Vice President, Sarah Zimmerman Duterte. [5:11] With the permission of the court, my co-counsel will enter their respective appearances. [5:21] You may proceed. [5:22] Gregorio Y. Narvaza, the second. [5:25] Christine R. Ferrer for the Vice President. [5:36] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [5:37] Michael Wesley Poa for the Vice President. [5:43] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [5:45] Carlo Joaquin T. Narvaza for the Vice President. [5:47] Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Mark C. Binluan for the Vice President. [5:56] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [5:57] Justin Nicole B. Goulart for the Vice President. [6:03] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [6:04] Lyndon Miguel C. Bakuel for the Vice President. [6:10] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [6:11] I am Ralph Borja Bodota for the Vice President. [6:16] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [6:18] Roberto Narvaza Botongbacal for the Vice President. [6:23] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [6:24] David Ronell M. Gully VII for the Vice President. [6:30] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [6:31] Carl Grace G. Uroseo for the Vice President. [6:36] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [6:38] Clarleen Radocq for the Vice President. [6:41] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [6:43] Francesca Marie V. Flores for the Vice President. [6:47] Good afternoon, Your Honors. [6:48] Miguel Carlos Albar Fernandez for the Vice President. [6:55] Chair notes the entry of appearance of the councils for respondent Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte. [7:02] Chair likewise notes that the Vice President is not physically present but represented more than adequately by her councils who entered their appearance. [7:15] On May 19, 2026, the Court, pursuant to Rule 7 of our rules, issued the summons to Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte to answer to the Articles of Impeachment. [7:26] On May 20, 2026, the Sergeant at Arms served the summons on the Vice President and made the return of service under oath before the Secretary of the Senate. [7:33] Let the return be entered at large into the records pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials. [7:43] So ordered. [7:44] Likewise, the Court received pleadings, comments, manifestations filed by the parties. [7:49] All such pleadings, comments, manifestations, and requests filed by the parties, as well as all issuances and orders of the Clerk, as well as the Clerk of Court, made through the presiding officer, are hereby deemed read into the records of the case. [8:03] So ordered. [8:04] For a disjuncture, the Chair would like to direct the parties to prepare for their opening statements. [8:11] We will start with the prosecution. [8:14] May I know from the prosecution who will deliver the opening statement and from the respondent who will deliver the opening statement? [8:20] Under our rules, only one lawyer shall deliver the opening statement for either side. [8:27] I presume, Representative Luistro, you will deliver for the prosecution and on the part of the respondent? [8:32] I will deliver the opening statement for the defense, Your Honor. [8:36] Representative Luistro from the Panel of Prosecutors of the House of Representatives is now recognized to deliver her opening statement for the prosecution. [8:47] You may proceed, ma'am, and you have 15 minutes. [8:52] Your Honor, before I proceed, the prosecution respectfully moves for the reading of the four articles of impeachment and the entry of the corresponding answer or plea for each article of impeachment, Your Honor. [9:09] Your Honor, this is consistent to the Senate rules on impeachment, particularly Rule 7, Your Honor, the last paragraph of which mentions about failure to appear, failure of the lawyer to appear, and failure to file answer. [9:28] Therefore, there should be an entry of plea of not guilty, Likewise, Your Honor, under Rule 9 of the Senate rule of impeachment, which says that the person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him or her. [9:47] In this rule, Your Honor, in this rule, it was likewise provided that the name of the person appearing in behalf of the respondent should be entered into the record. [10:01] And by the answer, Your Honor, it is humbly believed that it pertains to the particular plea of whether guilty or not guilty of the respondent, Your Honor. [10:10] Likewise, Your Honor, under Rule 22, 21, Your Honor, the trial of all the articles of impeachment shall be completed before the senators vote on the final question of whether or not the impeachment is sustained. [10:28] It is gleaned from this rule, It is gleaned from this rules, Your Honor, that the senators will be voting on a per-article basis, Your Honor. [10:37] And that is why it is the humble submission of the prosecution that there should be reading of the article and entry of the particular plea per-article, Your Honor. [10:48] This, likewise, Your Honor, manifests our complete adherence to the mandate of the Constitution [10:54] Sa pagbasa po ng mga artikulo ng impeachment at pagpapasok ng sagot ng respondent, may ipakita po natin sa sambayanang Pilipino ang ating pagsunod sa mandato ng konstitusyon. [11:09] Likewise, Your Honor, it upholds due process, not only of the respondent, but also of the Filipino people. [11:15] Sa pagbasa po ng mga artikulo ng impeachment, she will be informed of the nature of the accusation against her [11:23] Bago pa po siya sumagot whether she is guilty or not guilty, Your Honor. [11:29] Likewise, Your Honor, ang apat na artikulo po ng impeachment ay nakabase sa iba't ibang aligasyon ng facts at iba't ibang nature of accusation or cause of action, Your Honor. [11:41] And with that, Your Honor, it is perceived that there is a possibility that the plea of the respondent to each and every article will be different from one another, Your Honor. [11:51] And lastly, Your Honor, this is consistent with the Senate rules on impeachment because the Senator Judges, the Honorable Senator Judges, Your Honor, [12:01] will be voting on a per-article basis after the conclusion of the trial of this impeachment case, Your Honor. [12:10] The Chair will respond unless the counsel for respondent would like to say something about the motion of the distinguished lead prosecutor. [12:19] Yes, Your Honor, may I comment? [12:20] The lady may proceed. [12:22] Before the presiding officer can rule on the motion or request of the lead prosecutor. [12:31] But before I give my comment, may I just clarify if the lead prosecutor is now making a motion to arraign the respondent accused? [12:42] Your Honor, whether this is arraignment or otherwise, the motion of the prosecution is very much consistent with the Senate rules on impeachment. [12:50] I think the question, Your Honor, is very simple. [12:53] As I have mentioned, Your Honor, is the lead prosecutor requesting for the respondent accused to be arraigned, Your Honor. [13:04] For the respondent, kindly make your comments and avoid asking questions from the counsel for the prosecutor. [13:12] We will recognize the counsel for respondent for comments on the motion and the manifestations made by the lead prosecutor for the house. [13:20] You may proceed, ma'am. [13:21] Thank you, Your Honor. [13:22] I believe I have a standing question to the lead prosecutor, and I would like to ask her for the legal basis for requiring the respondent to be arraigned today. [13:34] Because, Your Honor, I note that in her request earlier and manifestations given for the respondent to be arraigned today, she cited Rule 7, Rule 9, and Rule 21. [13:54] However, in Rule 7, it very clearly states that if the person impeached after service shall fail to appear either in person or by counsel on the day so fixed or appearing shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, [14:14] the trial shall proceed nevertheless as upon a plea of not guilty. [14:19] Well, this rule is clear. [14:21] It does not talk about any arraignment. [14:23] And if we take a look at this sentence, everything here has been satisfied. [14:28] The respondent accused is here, has attended through counsel. [14:33] She may not be in person, but the notice given to the defense is that she may appear through counsel. [14:39] Second thing is that the respondent accused was also able to file her answer. [14:46] And so, Rule 7 does not support the request of the lead prosecutor that the respondent accused be arraigned today. [14:53] Now, on the matter of Article 9, counsel also say that the person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him or her. [15:06] And if he or she appears or any person for him or her, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by himself or by agent or counsel, naming the person appearing in the capacity in which or she he appears. [15:22] If he or she does not appear either personally or by agent or counsel, the same shall be recorded. [15:28] And for all intents and purposes, respondent is present today through counsel. [15:34] There is also nothing in Rule 9 that requires the reading of a 23-page article of impeachment, which will be a waste of judicial time. [15:48] Finally, under Rule 21, Your Honor, may I just correct the manifestation earlier by counsel? [15:59] Because it would seem to me, unless a reading of the transcript would say that I'm mistaken, but I seem to have heard the lead prosecutor claim that the voting on the articles of impeachment will be per article. [16:16] Well, that's true, but the first sentence of rule 21 says, the trial of all the articles of impeachment shall first be completed before the senators vote on the final question on whether or not the impeachment is sustained. [16:33] Now, honestly, I do not see how Rule 21 is related to the motion now being requested or propounded by the lead prosecutor. [16:41] And at any rate, Your Honor, given that the respondent is represented by her counsel today, and this is consistent, her appearance is consistent with the notice given and in accordance with the rules of procedure of this court, [17:03] then we can enter her plea on her behalf. [17:08] The arguments of the parties are duly noted. [17:11] The chair will now make its ruling. [17:13] The articles of impeachment were deemed read and spread into the records when it was referred by the Senate to the Committee on Justice for the proper issuance of summons. [17:22] And a plea of not guilty will only be entered in accordance with our rules in behalf of the vice president if she does not file an answer. [17:31] But in this case, she has filed an answer and in fact has appeared through counsel. [17:37] In so far as the reading of the articles of impeachment is concerned, it will be done at the final resolution of this case when it is put to a vote by the senator judges where each article of impeachment will be read before a vote shall be taken thereon. [17:54] For those reasons, the motion is denied and the lead prosecutor, Representative Luistro, may proceed with her opening statement. [18:03] Kindly be mindful of the clock and before recognizing you, ma'am, may I remind the counsels for the parties to kindly address the chair with respect to anything and everything they want or wish to say before the court and not to address each other. [18:17] The lady may proceed. Representative Luistro, you are recognized and you have 15 minutes for your opening remarks. [18:23] We thank the court, Your Honor. [18:24] Mr. Presiding Officer, the Honorable Chief Escudero, the Honorable Senate President, Honorable Wynne Gatchelian. [18:42] Sa atin pong mga kagalanggalang na senator judges, mga minamahal na kababayan, sa loob ng bulwagan o sa labasman, mga nakatutok sa telebisyon, sa cellphone o sa radyo, sa ang sulokman ng mundo, kayo naruroon. [19:05] Maraming Pilipino ang nagtatanong ngayon, bakit mahalaga ang paglilitis na ito? Ano ang kaugnayan nito sa buhay ng ordinaryong Pilipino? [19:23] Lubos po naming nauunawaan ang mga tanong na yan. Sa katunayan, may isang driver na nagtatanong paano sasapat ang kita sa pasada upang mapakain niya ang kanyang pamilya. [19:39] May isang OFW na nagtatanong hanggang kailan kailangan lumayo upang mapaaral niya ang kanyang mga anak. [19:51] May isang guro na nagtatanong paano pagkakasyahin ang kanyang sahod sa dami ng utang na hinuhulugan. [20:00] May isang manggagawa na nagtatanong hanggang kailan magtitiis sa pansamantalang trabaho at kakarampot na sweldo. [20:09] Sa unang tingin, maaring sabihin na malayo sa buhay nila ang paglilitis na ito. [20:20] Ngunit hindi, hindi po sapagkat ang usapin ngayon ay patungkol sa isang bagay na pag-aari nilang lahat. [20:33] Ang kanilang pera, ang kanilang tiwala, ang kanilang karapatan na maningil ng pananagutan mula sa mga pinuno na kanilang pinagkatiwalaan. [20:45] Kapag ang isang empleyado ay nagkamali ng paggamit ng pera ng kumpanya, siya ay pinagpapaliwanag. [20:58] Kapag ang isang barangay treasurer hindi maipaliwanag ang nawawalang pondo, siya ay iniimbestigahan. [21:07] Kapag ang isang prinsipal ay naglustay ng pera ng bayan, kahit liman libo lang yan, siya ay pinaparusahan. [21:17] Natural lamang na magtanong ang sambayanan kung ang ordinaryong Pilipino ay pinapanagot, bakit hindi ang pinakamakapangyarihan na opisyal ng pamahalaan. [21:35] Ito ang dahilan kung bakit mahalaga ang paglilitis na ito. [21:42] Hindi upang usigil ang isang tao, hindi upang maghiganti sa kalaban, hindi upang manalo sa politika, [21:50] kundi upang sagutin ang isang tanong na napakahalaga sa kinabukasan ng ating republika. [22:01] May saisay pa ba ang pananagutan sa ating bansa? [22:08] Sapagkat ang kasong ito ay higit at lampas sa sino mang opisyal, higit at lampas sa anumang partido, higit at lampas sa alinmang administrasyon. [22:23] Your Honors, the framers of the Constitution understood that there may come a day when extraordinary power would be entrusted to extraordinary office. [22:40] They also understood that there may come a day when trust would be broken. [22:46] And that is why they gave the House of Representatives the power to impeach and the Senate the duty to judge. [22:59] Not to punish political opponents, not to settle political scores, but to protect the republic itself. [23:10] That is why the Constitution declares, public office is a public trust. [23:20] Ang kapangyarihan ay hindi pag-aari ng sino mang opisyal. [23:27] Hiram lamang ito sa taong bayan. [23:30] At ito ang dahilan kung bakit naririto tayo ngayon. [23:37] Your Honors, the prosecution will present exactly what the Constitution requires. [23:44] Evidence, hindi chismis, hindi haka-haka, hindi propaganda, at lalong hindi sokmed narrative. [23:58] Evidence, official records, financial documents, government reports, video recording, statements under oath, independent findings of institutions created by law. [24:14] Mga dokumento na hindi bumoboto, mga records na walang partido, mga katotohanan na walang kulay pang politika. [24:31] Sa unang tingin, maaring magmukhang magkakahiwalay ang four articles of impeachment. [24:39] Confidential fund, unexplained wealth, bribery and corruption, threat against constitutional order. [24:47] But these are not four separate stories. [24:51] These are four chapters of the same story. [24:57] Story about power exercised without accountability. [25:02] Story about public trust betrayed. [25:06] Story about public office that stopped answering to the public. [25:12] On the first article of impeachment, the evidence will show that more than 612 million pesos in confidential fund [25:21] entrusted to the office of the vice president and the department of education were disbursed, transferred and liquidated under circumstances that cannot withstand scrutiny. [25:35] 612 million pesos. [25:40] Hindi ito pera ng gobyerno. [25:43] Pera ito ng sambayanan. [25:45] Pera ng manggagawa. [25:47] Pera ng magsasaka. [25:48] Pera ng OFW. [25:49] Pera ng guro. [25:51] Pera ng bawat Pilipino na nagpabayad ng buwis. [25:55] At nagtitiwala na gagamitin ito ng tama. [25:58] T-evidence will show liquidation reports supported by questionable documents. [26:06] T-evidence will show acknowledgement receipts bearing names government records could not verify. [26:14] Names that transformed accountability into a mackery. [26:19] Pananagutan na naging kalukuhan. [26:22] Names that insulted the intelligence of the Filipino people. [26:26] Mary Grace Piatos, Milky Sikuya, Coco Villamin. [26:30] On the second article of impeachment, the evidence will show financial transactions involving billions of pesos associated with the respondent and her husband. [26:45] Billions. [26:47] Hindi milyon. [26:49] Bilyon. [26:50] At habang milyon-milyong Pilipino ang nagtratrabaho at nag-iipon buong buhay upang magkaroon ng sariling pahay, makapagpaaral ng mga anak, magkaroon ng konting siguridad para sa pamilya. [27:04] Aba, bilyon-bilyong piso ang dumaan sa mga bank accounts na hindi may paliwanag ng maayos. [27:14] This article is not about wealth. [27:17] This is about accountability. [27:20] This is about explanation. [27:23] If wealth was lawfully acquired, where is the lawful explanation? [27:30] If transactions were proper, where is the complete accounting? [27:34] If numbers truly add up, then why do they refuse to reconcile? [27:43] On the third article of impeachment, the evidence will show bribery, graft, and corruption through the distribution of cash payments and monetary gifts to officials under the supervision of the respondent. [27:57] This article is not simply about envelopes. [28:03] This is about institution. [28:06] This is about whether loyalty was purchased rather than earned. [28:11] Government cannot function if loyalty is purchased instead of earned. [28:18] Kapag nabibili ang katapatan, nawawala ang integridad. [28:25] At kapag nabibili ang opisyal, nabubudol ang bayan. [28:30] Perhaps the greatest tragedy is where the conduct allegedly occurred. [28:40] In the Department of Education, tama po sa TEP-8, the institution entrusted with teaching future generations honesty, responsibility, integrity. [28:57] On the fourth article of impeachment, the evidence will show culpable violation of the Constitution, high crime, betrayal of public trust, [29:08] through conduct that threatens constitutional order. [29:11] Among all allegations before this court, none strikes more directly at the heart of constitutional order than this one. [29:22] Ito na po ang pinakamatindi. [29:25] And unlike in many cases, which depends upon competing accounts, [29:30] This evidence comes substantially from the respondent's own recorded public statements. [29:40] The court will see them. [29:42] The court will hear them. [29:44] The court will judge them. [29:47] Public officials may disagree. [29:51] We may criticize one another. [29:54] They may compete fiercely for power. [29:57] That is democracy. [30:00] But democracy ends when violence begins. [30:05] Sa kasaysayan ng ating republika, walang vice-presidente na may kaibigan na hitman. [30:16] Ngayon lang, walang vice-presidente na nagpapapatay ng Pangulo. [30:23] Ngayon lang, walang vice-presidente na handang magpapatay para lamang makaupo sa pwesto. [30:31] Ngayon lang. [30:32] The Constitution provides many means on how to resolve political conflict, election, legislation, public debate, judicial review, and even impeachment. [30:50] But it does not permit threats. [30:54] It does not permit violence. [30:58] It does not permit people entrusted with power to place themselves above constitutional restraints. [31:06] Your Honors, at the center of this case lies a simple question, perhaps the most important to any republic. [31:20] When the people entrust power to a public official, does the public official remain accountable to the people? [31:29] Or do the people become accountable to the public official? [31:35] The Constitution's answer is very clear. [31:39] Power belongs to the people. [31:42] Public office is merely borrowed. [31:44] And every borrowed power carries with it the obligation to account for its use. [31:53] If a barangay treasurer must account for public fund, then so must the vice president. [32:02] If an ordinary public servant can be investigated, then so can the highest officials of the government. [32:10] If an ordinary citizen is expected to obey the rules, then surely those who govern them must obey them first. [32:23] Otherwise, what lessons do we teach our children? [32:29] That there is law for the powerful and another for everyone else? [32:36] That accountability exists only for the weak? [32:39] That public office grants immunity against accountability? [32:45] Your Honors, this is not the republic envisioned by the Constitution. [32:55] This is not the republic deserved by the Filipino people. [33:01] Therefore, the prosecution asks only this. [33:07] Look at the evidence. [33:10] Listen to the witnesses. [33:11] Examine the records. [33:16] Follow the evidence wherever it leads. [33:20] Judge this case. [33:22] Not by politics. [33:24] Not by popularity. [33:26] Not by fear. [33:28] Not by loyalty. [33:31] Judge this case by the Constitution. [33:35] Judge this case by the evidence. [33:38] Years from now, future generations will not remember today's political alliances. [33:48] They will not remember today's headlines. [33:52] They will not remember today's slogans. [33:56] What they will remember is when accountability was tested, the institutions of the republic stood firm. [34:04] They will remember only one thing. [34:09] What this court did when the Constitution called. [34:13] Future generations will not ask how powerful the respondent was. [34:22] They will not ask how loud the political debate became. [34:27] But they will ask one thing. [34:30] When the Constitution called, did the republic answer? [34:38] Your Honors, this is that moment. [34:44] This is the moment the Constitution anticipated. [34:49] This is the moment when accountability must mean exactly what it says. [34:54] This is the moment when public office must truly remain a public trust. [35:01] This is the moment when the republic must demonstrate that laws are applied equally to the powerful and the powerless alike. [35:12] At matapos marinig ang mga saksi, matapos masuri ang mga dokumento, matapos matimbang lahat ng ebidensya, [35:26] ang prosekusyon ay naniniwala at naninindigan. [35:32] Isa lamang ang maliwanag na konklusyon. [35:36] Ang tiwalang ipinaggaloob ay nilabag. [35:40] Ang kapangyarihang ipinahiram ay inabuso. [35:45] At ang konstitusyon mismo ang humihingi ng pananagutan. [35:49] Amid the clarity of the mandate of the Constitution, political noise continues, political squabbles continues, political division continues. [36:05] Please, let me conclude. [36:08] Salus populi es supremolex. [36:12] The welfare of the people is the supreme law. [36:17] Thank you, Your Honor. [36:18] The opening remarks of the prosecution through the lead counsel is duly noted. [36:27] Opening remarks for the respondent. [36:30] Counsel for respondent has 15 minutes, and we will give you the same latitude we gave. [36:36] Counsel for the prosecution for an additional three minutes, should you so need it. [36:40] You may proceed, ma'am. [36:41] Thank you, Your Honor. [36:42] Your Honors, fellow Filipinos, good afternoon. [36:48] As we begin today the impeachment trial of the Vice President, and in the days ahead, [36:54] this Court will undertake its constitutional task of receiving and weighing the party's evidence, [37:01] and ultimately to decide whether these pieces of evidence justify either a judgment of conviction or acquital guided only by its members' conscience [37:12] and their solemn oath to do impartial justice. [37:17] The present undertaking of this Court, therefore, not only carries the weight of the Constitution, [37:23] but also the imprint of our nation's history, because the Filipino people have shown that they never forget. [37:32] We, as a nation, never forget. [37:38] But why is the act of remembering important? [37:42] What does it matter to our history and to ordinary Filipinos? [37:46] Because in this trial, the prosecution proposes that we unseat the Vice President elected to office by more than 32 million Filipino people, [38:00] more than the number of votes cast for the sitting President, and much greater. [38:06] than any of the votes secured by each of the members of the House of Representatives who now are here to prosecute her and seek to undo this people's choice. [38:17] Sa makatwid, [38:18] ang malinaw na layunin sa likod na mga paratang na ito ay ang pagpapatalsik sa isang vice-presidenteng inihalal ng mahigit 32 milyong Pilipino at bunga ng kanilang malayang pagpapasya. [38:34] Whatever once political persuasion is, the reality is that the prosecution now comes before this court to remove a vice president chosen by an overwhelming number of the electorate. [38:47] You all have heard the prosecution say repeatedly that this is because they seek accountability, that the people have a right to hold their leaders accountable. [38:58] This is not a matter of debate. [39:01] Indeed, the people have a right to demand accountability from their leaders. [39:06] What we have yet to hear from the prosecution, however, is this. [39:12] When the Constitution declared under Section 1, Article 11, that public office is a public trust and that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, [39:28] serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, [39:38] and lead modest lives, the Constitution does not only speak to the vice president. [39:45] It also demands the same standards from the prosecutors. [39:50] Being public officers themselves, the public prosecutors and the members of the House of Representatives are also held to the same constitutional standard. [40:02] And so we must remember what history tells us. [40:05] This is not the first time that members of the House of Representatives have attempted to remove the vice president and in a manner not compliant with the Constitution. [40:19] In a July 2025 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously declared in Duterte v. House of Representatives, [40:27] GR numbers 278353 and 278359, that the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives were tainted with grave abuse of discretion, [40:41] rendering the articles of impeachment that the House transmitted last year to the Senate as void abd in issue. [40:47] Early this year, the Supreme Court unanimously denied with finality the House of Representatives motioned for reconsideration of that decision with a reminder that while impeachment is a powerful democratic process to call out corruption and grave abuse, [41:07] impeachment can be abused. [41:09] And that impeachment should never be abused to maintain the hegemonic dominance of greed by shaming those who occupy high government positions into preventing them from doing what they were sworn to do. [41:24] But perhaps the most enduring reminder of the Supreme Court that we must not forget in the entire course of this trial is that in the words of the court, [41:37] the rule of law that does justice is our lodestar and that justice includes accountability. [41:45] Justice includes fairness. [41:48] Without fairness, there is abuse. [41:51] This fairness is what our democracy is all about. [41:55] It is in light of these reminders that we draw attention to certain fundamental legal principles that we think we must not forget throughout this trial. [42:05] Mga batayang prinsipyo, na dapat nating tandaan sa buong panahon ng paglilitis na ito, ano man ang ating kulay o politika. [42:14] If we are to be true and honest to our proclaimed values, such as the pursuit of accountability, justice, and integrity in our system of government, [42:25] then we must remain possessed of an unyielding resolve to ensure that the trial and judgment in this case are done in accordance with the command of the Constitution, [42:37] the majesty of the law, and the discipline required by the rules. [42:41] Otherwise, those who stand in sanctimonious judgment of the vice president will send the clear message that the law can be bent when it suits the convenience of the powerful, [42:55] and that justice can be sacrificed at the altar of partisan interests. [42:59] Mahalagang tandaan ang mahigpit na paalala ng ating Korte Suprema. [43:06] Impeachment is not a purely political proceeding. [43:11] It is primarily a legal, political, and constitutional mechanism. [43:16] Ibig sabihin, kailangang na ayon sa batas at konstitusyon ang anumang proseso nito. [43:25] According to the Constitution, it is the Senate that shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. [43:34] This power is not shared. [43:36] The Constitution gives no other body, department, tribunal, agency, or a mere committee of any of these institutions the power to try an impeachment case. [43:48] The House merely initiates, the Senate tries. [43:53] Yet, we have seen the Committee on Justice conduct what its chairperson, the lead prosecutor in this case, described as a mini-trial, [44:02] which, as we all had witnessed, became a vast fishing expedition of alleged evidence that were not even part of the impeachment complaints [44:13] under its consideration, and which the respondent accused was made to answer. [44:20] In that mini-trial, we saw how the purported pieces of evidence were curated to construct a narrative against the vice president even before this case reaches trial. [44:33] The articles of impeachment presented before this court as an exercise of the House's power to initiate impeachment cases [44:41] are, therefore, in sober truth, the product of an impermissible intrusion of clear constitutional boundaries. [44:50] Over the course of the impeachment trial, the prosecution will attempt to convince this court and the court of public opinion [44:58] that the allegations in the articles of impeachment are supported by materials they obtained during their mini-trial [45:05] and that evidence exists to sustain a judgment of conviction. [45:09] They will claim that the notices of suspension and disallowance issued by the COA and the COA decision denying the vice president's appeal [45:18] of that disallowance support their accusations with the release of that decision by the COA conveniently timed [45:25] and coinciding with the committee hearings. [45:28] They will claim that the certifications of the PSA confirm their allegation that recipients of the confidential funds [45:35] do not exist, even though they listed one Mary Grace Piatos in their pretrial brief as among their witnesses, [45:42] or that the liquidation of the confidential funds in a span of 11 days was allegedly swift as to invite suspicion. [45:51] The prosecution will assert that the supposed NBI findings of similar signatures across a number of acknowledgement receipts [45:59] submitted to the COA are supportive of their conclusion that the disbursements of the confidential funds were irregular. [46:07] What the prosecution avoided informing the public so far are these. [46:12] That it was the then-secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, Amena Pangandaman, [46:18] who issued a memorandum for the president through Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin on October 18, 2022, [46:27] recommending the approval of the Office of the Vice President's request for confidential funds. [46:32] That the Office of the President did in fact approve that recommendation of the DBM [46:37] through a memorandum from the Executive Secretary dated November 28, 2022, [46:44] and signed by the former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin by order of the President. [46:49] That on December 13, 2022, the DBM issued the special allotment order number CRO-BMB-C-22-001-2004, [47:01] signed by former Secretary Amena Pangandaman to cover the request of financial assistance subsidy [47:07] and confidential funds of the OVP that, notwithstanding the impending end of the fiscal year, [47:15] the confidential funds were nonetheless released to the OVP on December 20, 2022, [47:22] under this documented approval process. [47:25] That the COA decision is far from being final. [47:28] That there is a pending motion for reconsideration of that decision. [47:32] That, assuming arguendo, the COA denies that MR today, [47:37] or while this trial is ongoing, as could plausibly happen under the circumstances, [47:42] the respondent accused still has legal remedies available under the law and rules [47:48] and can file a petition to question the validity of any forthcoming resolution of the COA on the MR [47:54] under Rule 64 via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the rules of court. [48:01] And more importantly, that nothing in the notice of disallowance or COA decision states [48:09] any findings of supposed misuse of confidential funds as confirmed by Attorney Gloria Camora [48:17] when she was asked on this point during the committee hearing on April 14, 2026. [48:24] Across all other articles, the prosecution will lay a landscape of what it deems to be their evidence [48:33] in support of their speculations and conclusions. [48:37] We are not strangers to all these accusations precisely because this was not the first time [48:43] these narratives were foisted into the minds of the general public. [48:48] We have heard the same tales and stories of these accusations since 2024 [48:54] when the House conducted its Quad Com hearings and most recently the minor trial of its Committee on Justice. [49:01] But what we must not forget amid all these accusations is the fundamental legal principle [49:08] that the burden of proof never shifts. [49:13] The burden of proof never shifts. [49:17] He who accuses must prove his allegations with evidence [49:22] that meets not only the degree of proof required [49:25] but also meets the evidentiary standards of admissibility, credibility, relevance, materiality, and competence. [49:34] We therefore should not lose sight of the core principle [49:38] that the burden of proof is on the prosecution [49:41] and unless it discharges that burden [49:44] the accused need not even offer evidence on her behalf [49:48] and she will be entitled to an acquittal. [49:51] This is the law then. [49:53] This is the law now. [49:56] And the underlying principle for this burden of proof is simple. [50:00] Under our Constitution, [50:02] every accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. [50:07] An accused has in her favor the presumption of innocence [50:10] which the Bill of Rights guarantees. [50:13] This also brings to fore the reality that [50:16] in the words of the Supreme Court in People v. Pagal, [50:19] the individual citizen is but the speck of particular molecule [50:25] vis-a-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government [50:29] and his only guarantee against oppression and tyranny [50:33] are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights [50:36] which shield him in times of need. [50:39] sa madaling salita. [50:41] Kinikilala ng ating saligang batas [50:44] na sa bawat paglilitis, [50:46] ang isang individual ay nahaharap [50:49] sa malalim at napakalaking makinarya ng buong Estado. [50:54] At ang tanging sandigan lamang niya [50:56] laban sa anumang pangaabuso ng kapangyarihan [51:00] ay ang kanyang mga batayang karapatan [51:03] sa ilalim ng ating konstitusyon. [51:05] Kaya't mahalagang linawin [51:07] na sa gitna ng pagtatangkang ikondisyon [51:10] ang kaisipan ng mamamayang Pilipino [51:13] at sa gitna ng walang humpay na komentaryo [51:16] sa mga pampublikong espasyo [51:18] wala pang maituturing na anumang ebidensya [51:22] o aligasyon na napapatunayan ng prosekusyon [51:26] sa simpleng dahilan na ang bawat ebidensya [51:29] ay kailangang dumaan muna [51:31] sa paglilitis at pagsusuri ng korteng [51:35] may tanging kapangyarihan sa ilalim [51:37] ng ating saligang batas. [51:39] Higit sa lahat, [51:41] ang anumang paglilitis ay kailangang na [51:44] ayon sa itinatakda ng ating batas at konstitusyon [51:48] at hindi lamang sa kagustuhan [51:50] ng iilang may hawak ng kapangyarihan. [51:53] One might ask, [51:55] why is it important that we must not forget [51:58] these basic principles? [52:00] The ruling of the Supreme Court tells us why. [52:04] The Bill of Rights applies to the entire impeachment process [52:08] because in as much as our court recognizes that impeachment is a political process, [52:15] it reminds us that it is not a purely political process, [52:19] but a legal and constitutional mechanism. [52:22] Thus, if we are to uphold the rule of law, [52:26] serve justice, and invoke the accountability mechanism, [52:29] then this court and we as a people must guarantee [52:34] that all efforts to hold our leaders accountable [52:38] must be done right. [52:41] This we must not forget. [52:44] I thank the court and the public for the privilege of your time. [52:48] May God bless our country. [52:52] Opening statement of the counsel's correspondent, [52:54] as Julie noted and entered into the records. [52:59] The court will now proceed to dispose of some of the incidents [53:04] that were brought up during the pretrial conference, [53:09] as well as other pending matters and motions. [53:12] First, on the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment, [53:20] the pretrial order stated that the prosecution is a free hand to determine [53:24] the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment. [53:28] However, respondent will be similarly accorded the same right [53:31] in so far as the presentation of their evidence and witnesses in chief is concerned. [53:38] May we now learn from the public, from the panel of prosecutors rather, [53:44] what will be the sequence of presentation of the articles of impeachment [53:48] that they intend to pursue? [53:53] Attorney Jokno is recognized. [53:55] You may proceed, sir. [53:56] Thank you, Your Honor. [53:56] The first article we will be presenting will be Article 4 on grave threats. [54:04] Second will be confidential funds, Article 1. [54:09] Third, bribery. [54:11] That is Article 3. [54:13] And the fourth is unexplained wealth, Your Honors. [54:16] That's Article 4. [54:21] No, 2. [54:22] I'm sorry, Article 2. [54:24] I stand corrected. [54:25] So, the sequence of presentations shall be Article 4, Article 1, Article 3, and then Article 2. [54:34] Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. [54:36] So, I presume that beginning tomorrow, once we issue the subpoena for your first set of witnesses, [54:42] you shall begin with Article 4. [54:45] Yes, Your Honor. [54:47] Again, Chair rules that the respondents have the same and equal privilege of presenting its case [54:52] as it so desires when it's time to present its evidence-in-chief shall come. [54:58] What is the pleasure of the Council for Respondent? [55:00] Thank you, Your Honor. [55:01] May I ask if the prosecution is ready to present its first witness today [55:06] because the defense is ready today, Your Honor. [55:09] Julie noted. [55:09] We will get to that later. [55:12] If, Your Honor, please. [55:14] If, Your Honor, please. [55:15] Yes, Representative Jokno. [55:16] I just noticed that Your Honor had already directed the Council for the Defense [55:21] not to propound questions to the prosecution. [55:25] This is already the second time that she's doing that. [55:28] She appears to be assuming or arrogating the powers of the court [55:32] because, as I understand the rules, it's only the court that can propound questions to the councils. [55:38] Your Honor, may I comment? [55:40] The lady may comment. [55:41] Council for Respondent, may I comment? [55:42] Yes, Your Honor. [55:44] I take exception to that manifestation of the good counsel. [55:47] In fact, the record would show, and if we can run the transcript back, [55:51] my question was addressed to the presiding officer, Your Honor. [55:55] Let us move forward, gentlemen and lady. [55:59] Next item for us to dispense with, the witness disclosure rule. [56:04] The prosecution proposed a three-day witness disclosure rule. [56:10] The respondents proposed a five-day witness disclosure rule, [56:13] but they understand the prosecution is amenable to the five-day witness disclosure rule. [56:19] Would that be correct, Representative Jokno? [56:21] We are amenable to the five-day disclosure rule. [56:23] Chair, therefore, rules that insofar as disclosure to either party of a witness to be presented, [56:29] not mentioned in the pretrial order and or briefs of the parties shall be for five days. [56:38] This is subject also to the chair's reminder that at the end of every week, [56:45] that would be a Wednesday while we are on recess, [56:47] we will ask the party presenting their case in chief to enumerate the witnesses they intend to present for the following week [56:55] with the corresponding motion for the request of issuance of subpoena to be submitted the day before or on Tuesday [57:02] so that we can act on it before the last day of the week [57:06] so that the subpoena can be properly issued in due course and in due time. [57:12] So, ordered. [57:14] On the examination of a witness by more than one counsel as propounded or proposed by the prosecution, [57:20] The rules of the Senate are clear. [57:25] Article 15 of the Rules on Impeachment states, [57:29] Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them [57:34] and then cross-examined by one person on the other side. [57:40] Court, therefore, rules that as a rule only one person shall present a witness. [57:47] However, in the exigency of the delivery and administration of justice [57:53] and under certain exceptions, the court may allow more than one counsel to examine [57:59] and or propound questions to a witness to cite an example just for the sake of the record. [58:05] If, for example, the panel of prosecutor disagrees with how the counsel for prosecutor is handling the case, [58:12] the panel of prosecutors or one of them can take over and that is but proper and should be allowed [58:19] and will therefore be considered as an exemption to that rule. [58:22] And other similar exigencies will be allowed in order to afford the orderly administration of justice and of these proceedings. [58:30] So, ordered. [58:32] Insofar as the BIR box is concerned, [58:36] What is the pleasure of? [58:39] Insofar as the BIR box is concerned, [58:42] This box was turned over to the Senate as part of the documents including the Articles of Impeachment. [58:53] However, the court is not yet in custodia lehis of this box given that there is no lawful order issued by the court [59:01] for this box to be turned over to the Senate. [59:05] More so that it is not yet offered in evidence, not even as of yet marked. [59:09] The chair therefore orders that the BIR box closed, sealed, and as it is received, [59:18] be sent back to the BIR or the Bureau of Internal Revenue without prejudice to any action that the court may take [59:25] if a motion will be filed by either party for the issuance of a subpoena [59:29] and we shall await action, if any, by the BIR commissioner should that time come. [59:34] So, ordered. [59:36] Now, insofar as the subpoena requested by the prosecution for the two NBI agents, [59:42] may I request the Clerk of Court to kindly read the motion for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum. [59:46] The prosecution, to the undersigned public prosecutors, respectfully request the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum, [1:00:04] directing the following witnesses to appear and testify before the Honorable Impeachment Court on July 6, July 7, and July 8, 2026 at 2 p.m. [1:00:12] As their testimonies are material, relevant, and necessary to establish the allegations under Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment, [1:00:19] as well as matters necessarily incidental thereto, and for purposes of the identification and authentication of other evidence before the Impeachment Court. [1:00:28] Number 1, Attorney Jeremy C. Lotok, Regional Director, National Bureau of Investigation. [1:00:34] Number 2, John Mark Kalilung, Senior Agent, National Bureau of Investigation. [1:00:39] Respectfully submitted, cancel CT for Pasay City, July 1, 2026. [1:00:44] We are not in receipt of any reservation or objection on the part of the respondent, counsel for respondent rather. [1:00:51] However, Chair would like to ask the prosecutors, do you only request for a subpoena ad testificandum or a subpoena duces tecum as well? [1:01:02] If I understand the record, Your Honor, please, it is a subpoena both for ad testificandum and duces tecum. [1:01:12] The motion filed by the prosecutors is only for a subpoena ad testificandum. That's why the Chair is clarifying. [1:01:21] Your Honor. [1:01:22] I stand corrected, if Your Honor, please. [1:01:24] It's just for ad testificandum. [1:01:26] Counsel for respondent? [1:01:27] If I may, Your Honor. [1:01:28] Just to set the record to state, the presiding officer earlier inquired or mentioned that the court is not in receipt of any objection from the respondent. [1:01:39] But just to set the record state straight, the respondent has not received any copy of the request for a subpoena being mentioned today, Your Honor. [1:01:54] What we received, Your Honor, was a manifestation containing the list of the witnesses of the prosecution for July 6, 7, and 8, Your Honor. [1:02:07] And so it would be impossible for the defense or the respondent to object or to even comment on a request that we were not served with any copy with. [1:02:18] The two witnesses against Tumas Abina has been requested by the prosecution or mentioned in the pretrial brief of the prosecution [1:02:27] and was not commented on by the respondents in their pretrial brief. [1:02:33] But if you do have any objections now, the court would be more than glad or reservations. [1:02:38] The court would be more than glad to hear it before ruling on the motion for the issuance of a subpoena. [1:02:42] That's fine. [1:02:42] On these two NBI agents. [1:02:43] At this point, Your Honor, that's fine. [1:02:45] We'll just place on record our objections as the testimonial evidence is presented. [1:02:51] Julie noted, Chair hereby orders that the subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum be issued to the aforementioned two NBI agents contained in the motion filed by the counsel for the prosecutors. [1:03:11] Although by nature, Sabina is ex parte, we would instruct, Chair would instruct the clerk of court to kindly upload all of the filings of all of the parties to the website for the information not only of the senator judges, but also of the parties and their counsels. [1:03:29] The chair earlier, counsel for respondents said that witnesses for the succeeding week shall be manifested in open court on the last day of the trial, in this case by Wednesday, insofar as the next week's trial is concerned. [1:03:44] Sorted. [1:03:44] Now, insofar as the request for subpoena for bank records and AMLC records, Chair recognizes the clerk of court to kindly read and spread into the records the request for the issuance of subpoena, both, I believe, ad testificandum and duces tecum, or just duces tecum, for the aforementioned documents. [1:04:07] The clerk of court may proceed. [1:04:09] Request for issuance of subpoena duces tecum. [1:04:12] The prosecution respectfully requests the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the branch manager of the following banks. [1:04:20] BPI Julia Vargas Branch [1:04:23] BPI Greenhills Elsa Branch [1:04:25] Philippine Savings Bank Wilson Branch [1:04:28] BDO Unibank Inc. Davao CM Rector Branch [1:04:31] Metro Bank Davao Ecolan Branch [1:04:34] BDO Unibank Davao Rizal Branch [1:04:37] Security Bank Bikutan Branch [1:04:39] Land Bank San Pedro Branch [1:04:42] Philippine Savings Bank Davao MADR Branch [1:04:45] Requiring him or her or his or her authorized representative to submit to the clerk of the impeachment court on or before 24 June 2026 at 9am [1:05:03] The certified true copies of all records, documents, books, papers, electronic data, communications, and information in the possession, custody, or control of the bank relating to any account, deposit, investment, trust, loan, safety deposit, or other financial transactions. [1:05:22] Maintained, open, closed, controlled, beneficially owned, or jointly held by Sara Z. Duterte and or Manassas R. Carpio [1:05:33] Whether individually, jointly with each other, jointly with any other person, or through any authorized representative, nominee, attorney-in-fact, or signatory, for the period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2025, including but not limited to. [1:05:52] Number 1. Records identifying account numbers, account types, know your customer documents, such as but not limited to customer information forms, and signature cards. [1:06:03] Number 2. Monthly bank statements, average daily balances per calendar year, year-end balances from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2025. [1:06:14] Number 3. All accounts and transaction records, ledgers, and journals, and similar instruments from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2025. [1:06:23] Number 4. All other relevant bank documents, request for subpoena due sestecum to the Anti-Money Laundering Council, to Honorable L.E. M. Remolona, Jr., Chairman, AMLC, to Attorney Ronel U. Benaventura, Executive Director, AMLC. [1:06:41] Number 3. Requiring him or her, or his or her, authorized representative, to submit to the Clerk of the Impeachment Court on or before 24 June, 2026 at 9 a.m., original or certified two copies of the following. [1:06:54] Number 1. All reports of covert transactions and suspicious transactions filed by banks and all other financial institutions and covert persons required to submit covert transaction reports and suspicious transaction reports to the AMLC involving Sarah Duterte Carpio. [1:07:11] Number 2. Any and all investigation reports or related reports or documents prepared by the AMLC involving the reported covert transactions or suspicious transactions. [1:07:29] Number 3. Electronic copies, including Microsoft Excel files, database extracts, or machine-readable formats of AMLC, CTRs, and SDRs for the period 2007 to 2025 involving Sarah Duterte Carpio and or Manassas R. Carpio. [1:07:49] Respectfully submitted, Kansas City for Pasay City, June 18, 2026. [1:07:53] Yes. Your Honor, may I comment? [1:07:55] If Your Honor, please, before the defense makes a comment. Just to obviate the proceedings and to facilitate the hearing today, if I may. [1:08:05] The chair has not recognized anyone yet. [1:08:09] May I be recognized, Your Honor? [1:08:11] Also, schedule an oral argument on the respective positions of the parties. [1:08:16] Yes, the chair will do that. [1:08:18] Thank you, Your Honor. And this would not be on Monday, Your Honor. [1:08:20] No, that will not be on Monday. [1:08:22] Thank you, Your Honor. [1:08:23] If Your Honor, please. [1:08:24] Yes. May I be allowed to make a counter-manifestation, just a brief one with respect to the statement of the defense counsel regarding the application of the case of Duterte versus House of Representatives. [1:08:38] The gentleman may proceed briefly. [1:08:41] Your Honor, the decision and the resolution of the honor of the Supreme Court in that case did not say that any preterm evidence is inadmissible. [1:08:51] There is no statement like that at all in the entire decision and the resolution. [1:08:57] What the Supreme Court said, and I quote, was very simple. [1:09:00] The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. [1:09:09] All of the articles in this particular case pertain to impeachable acts committed by the vice president during her term as an impeachable officer, including unexplained wealth. [1:09:23] If I may just be allowed one minute, Your Honor, to explain that the unexplained wealth, Your Honor, that is amassed prior to the term of a vice president is relevant and material to her being an impeachable officer. [1:09:41] Because the wealth of the magnitude of millions or billions, I mayroon pa rin pong pakinabang po yan ang vice president kahit hanggang ngayon. [1:09:52] It's very clear that when a local government official, for example, who later becomes a national official, amasses hundreds of millions if not billions of pesos, then that benefit continues today. [1:10:07] Second, if Your Honor, please, integrity, hindi po pwedeng biakin po yan, na at kesa dati ay hindi po ganon at ngayon may integridad. [1:10:17] It's very clear that integrity is a continuing requirement of fitness for office. [1:10:24] Thank you, Your Honor. [1:10:26] Julie noted and entered into the records. [1:10:29] May I respond? [1:10:30] Just very briefly, Your Honor. [1:10:32] Council correspondent. [1:10:33] Much time of the impeachment. [1:10:35] As a rejoinder to the statement and manifestation of Representative Jovna, briefly. [1:10:40] Thank you, Your Honor. [1:10:41] I think the good counsel has already stated precisely the reason for our position. [1:10:48] We maintain our belief that the Duterte versus HOR ruling precludes any of this trawling incursion, again, on private records of so many individuals and so many entities, [1:11:05] when nothing in the articles of impeachment point to any specific allegations as to the relevancy of all these documents, Your Honor. [1:11:13] But nonetheless, we will include all our position and as well as our objections on the requests made today with respect to these documents. [1:11:22] And what it would seem to the defense would be another 2.0 version of a fishing expedition. [1:11:34] Thank you, Your Honor. [1:11:35] May I also, Your Honor, just to clarify also the period given to us to comment on the request for subpoena, [1:11:46] may we ask that the five-day period run from our receipt of the copies of the documents, Your Honor. [1:11:54] We will make sure that the counsel for respondents will get that today. [1:11:59] Thank you, Your Honor. [1:12:02] The comments of both counsels of the parties are duly noted and entered in the records. [1:12:06] Chair would like to apologize to Senator Cayetano who has been waiting for quite some time. [1:12:10] Thank you for your patience and indulgence. [1:12:12] Senator Cayetano is recognized. [1:12:13] Thank you, Mr. President, Senator Judge. [1:12:18] Since we already stated as a court that we will take literally Section 3, subparagraph 6 of Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution, [1:12:35] that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate, [1:12:41] may I ask the members of this court through the presiding justice to consider, not today, [1:12:47] I have a proposal, but not today, but to consider communication with the Sandigan Bayan for the attendance of Senator Dante Marcoleta and Senator Gingoy Estrada, [1:13:00] considering that the presiding officer may correct me if I'm wrong, but if we get to Section 21, [1:13:10] as discussed a while ago by the defense, the prosecution and defense, and we do not know what will happen. [1:13:17] And their case may be dismissed. [1:13:18] They can be out on bail. [1:13:21] So we want them to be able to participate and observe the witnesses as Senator judges here. [1:13:30] I do know that Senator Gingoy is under suspension, but there's an argument to be made that the impeachment court is originaries. [1:13:42] In ordinary committee hearings, we do coordinate with courts to ask that persons under their custody be delivered to the Senate or the House of Representatives under certain conditions. [1:13:58] So I'd like to formally ask, Mr. President, that this court consider that I will submit whether you'd rather have a caucus or a in-camera discussion, [1:14:10] or if you want us all to submit our legal opinion. [1:14:14] I wouldn't also mind the prosecution and defense weighing in, but considering that if they do not attend, [1:14:21] and they are here, considering that if they do not attend at all and cannot vote, their vote will be equal to a acquittal. [1:14:34] And as we said from the start, we want a fair and we want justice, we want a fair impeachment trial. [1:14:44] We want justice, we want justice, we want justice, we want justice, we want justice, we want justice. [1:14:49] So regardless of Senator Marcoleta or Senator Gingoy, and of course this is my personal opinion, [1:14:57] that there are politicians in admitting their values. [1:15:00] That's my political, that's my personal view. [1:15:02] So, allowing them to attend here might add to the integrity of the proceeding and actually make things easier when the time comes to render a verdict. [1:15:15] So, may I submit that to the court and to our colleagues for discussion at the proper time, Mr. President? [1:15:21] The chair notes the comments and requests of Senator Judge Cayetano and will consult the senator judges regarding this matter and shall coordinate with his office with respect to his requests pertaining to Senators Jingoy Estrada and Senator Marcoleta, including whether or not we will enlist the comment and position of the parties to this case. [1:15:47] So, Senator Tulfo, what is the pleasure of Senator Judge Tulfo? Rafi? [1:16:02] Mr. President, officer, as far as I'm concerned, I would allow siguro mag-monitor yung mga si Senators Jingoy, Senators Marcoleta. [1:16:13] It will be allowed kahitman lang yung sa TV monitor. Para sa akin, I do agree with what Sen. Alan Pitik Cayetano was suggesting. Thank you. [1:16:23] Mr. President, officer. The point of Senator Raffi, Senator Judge Raffi Tulfo is well taken by the chair. [1:16:31] Any others? If there are none, presiding officer would now like to deal with an administrative matter before we adjourn for this afternoon. [1:16:44] On the matter of providing public access to case records, yes, Senator Judge Marcos, what is your pleasure, man? [1:16:51] Yes, deciding officer, may I request an update? As I recall, during the pretrial conference, there was disagreement on how to go about the markings on the various documents. [1:17:04] And among the thousands of pages that we have received in evidence for the trial, it apparently was resolved that the councils would place their initials on the evidence. [1:17:15] Is that correct? Is that still what stands today? And each party would take their respective evidence or files and present the same during the trial to guarantee that the same evidence would be presented? [1:17:27] Is that correct? [1:17:27] That is correct, with the exception of some, I think, documents where the original was not presented, which is being corrected, I think, by the parties as we speak. [1:17:36] Are we, in fact, in receipt as judges of all these thousands of pages? [1:17:42] Dahil ako, simple lang hinahanap ko yung affidavit of investigation, yung dalawang NBI na unang testigo na sana haharap ngayon, [1:17:53] nakita ko sa libu-libong pahina na sinabmit, mali-mali ang pagka-annex ng AOI. [1:18:00] Hindi ko talaga mahanap. [1:18:02] Tapos, ang sabi doon, Annex G. [1:18:05] Pero nung kinalkal ko yung Annex G, hindi naman affidavit yun, kundi disbursement voucher or something like that. [1:18:12] Kaya, hindi ko alam kung nag-provide ba talaga ang clerk ng Senate ng records as marked during pre-trial at kung pinal na talaga ito at pag-aaralan natin. [1:18:23] At this point in time, Your Honor, documentary evidence as of yet has not been formally offered and therefore has not been turned over to the court. [1:18:33] Neither has it as of yet been identified by a witness to authenticate the same and to be allowed admission into the records of this court. [1:18:42] That time will come once the prosecution presents their witness and identifies the piece of evidence, that will be the proper time, perhaps, that the good senator judge can ask for a copy because the lady might want to ask questions of the witness. [1:18:58] Yes, should that time come for the witness to testify as to the document marked previously erroneously or rightfully by either party? [1:19:09] Yes, precisely. Thank you very much, presiding officer. [1:19:12] We wish to prepare for the three first witnesses and were unable to access any of their affidavits or other documents. Thank you. [1:19:21] Julie noted and under the records, what is the pleasure of Senator Judge Padilla? [1:19:25] Ginoong tagapamahal ng hukom, gusto ko lamang pong sundan yung sinabi ni Sen. Judge Alan Peter Cayetano at magpasalamat po kay Sen. Judge Rafi Tulfo. [1:19:43] Gusto ko lamang pong linawin na ang hinihingi po namin kung hindi man makapag-participate dahil sinasabi nga po ay ipinagbabawal silang makapag-participate. [1:19:52] At bumoto si Sen. Jingo Estrada at Sen. Judge Marculeta, ang hinihingi po namin ay makapunta po sila dito bilang observer, hindi lang po basta monitor. [1:20:05] Yung lamang po, maraming salamat. [1:20:07] Noted at the proper time, we shall discuss this matter and settle it as a court or in caucus. [1:20:16] There being no other Senator Judge who wishes to make a manifestation, comment, and or motion, Chair would now like to dispose of an administrative matter. [1:20:23] Consistent with Article 2, Section 28 of the Constitution on the Policy of Public Disclosure in Matters Involving Public Interest and to Give Life to the Directive under the Rules to Open the Impeachment Proceedings to the Public, [1:20:38] The court hereby directs the clerk of court to create the necessary internet webpages to allow the electronic records of impeachment to be made accessible to the public through the Senate website whereby all pleadings, memoranda, motions filed by the party shall be uploaded including the journal of the proceedings after it shall have been approved by the impeachment court. [1:21:03] Yun lang po siguro yung madedelay ng konti dahil kailangan napurubahan muna ng impeachment court yung journal bago po namin ma-upload sa website. [1:21:12] Yes, what is the pleasure of Senator Judge Bam Aquino? [1:21:15] Yes, Mr. President, on this note, firstly we'd like to second and congratulate this move of the impeachment court to make all of the evidence available to the public. [1:21:26] May we know in how many days will the clerk of court will make this evidence available to the public, Mr. President? [1:21:34] They've started but they have not completed it yet. [1:21:40] As Senator Judge Marcos said, the documents are voluminous. [1:21:45] I think it covers until 9Q, if I'm not mistaken, initially when it was marked, about more than 10,000 documents. [1:21:56] Mr. President, of course, in the same way if this is made available to the public six months from now or one year from now, that defeats the purpose of having this made public. [1:22:08] No, no, no, that will not happen. [1:22:09] Yes, may we get a commitment from the clerk of court as to the delay by which presented evidence is made public, Mr. President? [1:22:16] No, no, no. Let me clarify, Your Honor. I believe the articles of impeachment as well as its annexes have been uploaded. [1:22:45] The answer as well as its annexes have been uploaded. [1:22:49] And most of the exhibits that were marked, not all, are annexes of either the impeachment complaint and or the answer. [1:22:58] Can the chair give you an update before the week is over as to a realistic timetable to upload in real time already? [1:23:08] Again, except for the journal, which we need to approve. [1:23:11] So we cannot upload the Wednesday transcript or journal until we meet again on Monday and approve the journal of Wednesday. [1:23:20] So that would be the only delay, if at all, in uploading it. That should be the only delay. [1:23:24] So if I take it correctly, Mr. President, the clerk of court will endeavor to upload all of the presented evidence in real time at the soonest possible time, [1:23:35] except for the journal, which needs approval of the body. [1:23:38] That is correct, Your Honor. [1:23:39] Thank you, Mr. President. [1:23:41] Senator Judge Cayetano, Alan. [1:23:46] Presiding Senator Judge, just a clarification. [1:23:50] So no problem with complete transparency with any public records. [1:23:55] But when we talk about evidence, precisely that's why we want a fair trial due process. [1:24:05] There's a process wherein the prosecution shall present evidence, then they will offer it. [1:24:13] And then if there's a question as to the relevance or if it is prohibited. [1:24:18] For example, if a evidence presented is a fruit of the poisonous tree, will we upload that? [1:24:26] But we haven't decided yet here whether we will accept it as evidence or not. [1:24:34] So let me tell you first which ones personally I don't have a problem with. [1:24:39] Don't have a problem with the public records in general being completely transparent. [1:24:46] I have no problem with Senator Judges given time to review everything. [1:24:51] And I assume we're all trained to consider only the evidence that is later on admitted, offered and admitted. [1:25:02] So my problem is that, for example, if someone offers now, between now and the trial, wiretapped recordings, [1:25:14] do we upload that when we have not made a ruling yet on that? [1:25:18] So I just want to be clarified on that. [1:25:19] The Chair will clarify, as the Chair said earlier, only the pleadings, motions, and memoranda filed by the parties, [1:25:27] and insofar as the exhibits marked are concerned, only those attached as annexes to either the articles of impeachment [1:25:34] and or the answer to the impeachment complaint. [1:25:37] Insofar as documentary evidence is concerned, it will only be admitted and, if at all, admitted by the court and published once formal offer has been made. [1:25:49] Until such time, we will not publish any documentary evidence even after being identified by a witness [1:25:57] because it is the formal offer that will determine its admission by the court after the party rests. [1:26:03] Same thing, just to clarify, same with if we do issue a subpoena. [1:26:11] The subject matter of the subpoena will not be published, but the motion for the issuance of a subpoena will. [1:26:16] Thank you for that clarification. [1:26:17] Thank you, Your Honor. [1:26:20] Senator Judge Irwin Tulfo is recognized. [1:26:24] What is your pleasure, sir? [1:26:28] Thank you, Mr. President. [1:26:29] Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. [1:26:31] I just want to be clarified. [1:26:33] I need a clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer. [1:26:36] With regards to these Anti-Money Laundering Council documents or pieces of evidence that will be submitted here, [1:26:44] will it be okay if we tackle this in public or shall we tackle evidence from the AMLOC during an executive session? [1:26:53] I believe this is under the bank secrecy law or we can tackle it because this is an impeachment court. [1:27:03] Mr. Presiding Officer. [1:27:04] What we will debate upon, if at all, on the scheduled date to be set by the chair, [1:27:10] is a debate on whether or not to issue the subpoena, [1:27:16] du sistegum ad testificandum, in relation to AMLC records, not the actual records yet. [1:27:23] Once it is granted by the court and is issued, it will have to be presented by the parties. [1:27:31] We cannot tackle and discuss it in executive session because anything and everything discussed in executive session [1:27:38] cannot be revealed to the public and used by this court. [1:27:44] Secondly, it can only be, if at all, revealed by a unanimous vote or consent by all the senator judges, [1:27:52] which effectively hogties that piece of evidence if we discuss and talk about it only in executive session. [1:28:01] Whether or not it is to be made public, whether or not it can be legally obtained, [1:28:06] will be decided by this court after hearing the oral arguments of the parties. [1:28:10] Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer. [1:28:12] What is the pleasure of Senator Judge Villanueva? [1:28:18] Yes, Mr. President. [1:28:19] Considering that we have been tackling and asking of pieces of evidence, [1:28:27] I think there's a lot of questions with regard to the mahiwagang BIR box, Mr. President. [1:28:35] A clarification lang po, where is it now and when are we going to transfer it to the Bureau of Internal Revenue? [1:28:47] It is with the clerk of court in the office of the Secretary General as instructed by the chair. [1:28:53] It should be sent back to the BIR by tomorrow morning in the condition that it was received, meaning sealed. [1:29:01] The same. Thank you, Mr. President. [1:29:03] Any other manifestations or motions on the part of the Senator Judges? [1:29:12] Senator Judge Antiveros is recognized. [1:29:15] What is your pleasure, ma'am? [1:29:17] Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer. [1:29:19] Just to make a brief statement in support of the ruling recently proclaimed by the presiding officer on executive sessions. [1:29:31] Thank you, if I may, Mr. Presiding Officer. [1:29:33] And just to add a little bit of that, Mr. Presiding Officer, thank you. [1:29:40] The executive session is only for Congress acting in its usual legislative functions. [1:29:47] And impeachment trials do not contemplate executive sessions. [1:29:52] So, I join with the presiding officer in the call that he made, which I believe is the default also of this impeachment trial court for transparency as a general rule and as a default. [1:30:05] Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer. [1:30:07] Thank you, Senator Judging Antiveros. [1:30:09] Before the court adjourns, Chair directs the Clerk of Court to kindly make sure that the subpoena for the two NBI agents will be issued this afternoon and duly received and entrusts it to the Council for Prosecutors to make sure of the attendance of their two witnesses tomorrow. [1:30:27] Likewise, the Chair reminds the Clerk of Court to furnish, right after we adjourn, counsel for respondents with a copy of the requests for the issuance of subpoena thus far submitted and filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court. [1:30:44] So, ordered, there being no other business to discuss, the trial is hereby adjourned until 2 p.m. of Tuesday, tomorrow, July 7, 2026. [1:30:56] 2 p.m. of Tuesday, tomorrow, July 7, 2026.