About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial Day 7 — Philippine Senate Hearing LIVE — VP Sara Trial Today from ET Now, published July 18, 2026. The transcript contains 9,979 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"proceedings 2026 and consider the same as approved um on the motion there being objection journalists hereby approved senator mr president let me thank you and just make the manifestation that this representation believes that it is a threshold issue the number of senators to convict and two-thirds"
[0:00] proceedings 2026 and consider the same as approved um on the motion there being objection
[0:10] journalists hereby approved senator mr president let me thank you and just make the manifestation
[0:16] that this representation believes that it is a threshold issue the number of senators to convict
[0:23] and two-thirds the logical fair uh that that would give justice to the constitution 16 so i thank you
[0:30] for that statement and as you mentioned it is a statement of the court not only of the presiding
[0:38] justice because having said that mr president as to the issue of the presiding officer not to take up
[0:50] more time uh i'd like to register a continuing objection but instead of giving my arguments may
[0:58] i submit it in writing but basically saying that the violation of the constitution is not a
[1:04] technicality but if our dear colleagues would allow we will just submit it in writing mr president
[1:09] whoever wants objection of the gentleman is noted and um he may so submit his extended written
[1:16] explanation in writing for the record senator caritano thank you mr president uh just a few
[1:22] administrative matters with your indulgence dear colleagues the lady may proceed thank you uh i read
[1:27] that we have rules um for our uh resource panel and also our prosecution and defense that no drinks and
[1:35] food allowed may respectfully request that they be be allowed to have water it's a it's a basic human
[1:40] right uh i read something i'm just saying i saw it in the rules i'm making clear because knowing knowing
[1:49] them they will follow our rules and uh i think it's not right to not allow drinks and then there may be
[1:54] some who are pre-diabetic or diabetic and need to eat something so if they have to have crackers or
[1:59] whatever it is that they need to have i think we should allow them to do that mr president
[2:06] and then they should also be allowed to have a bathroom break i don't want them to also maybe
[2:13] automatically be allowed i think they're responsible enough to they're a whole team there's like a
[2:18] dozen of them here and then finally smoking is sitting is the new smoking maybe also allow them
[2:24] without them having to ask for permission to stand up stand in the back and to stretch their legs
[2:28] because it is it is not healthy to be sitting down for two three four hours and i think our
[2:32] hearings will go on for a long time so that is my humble submission uh for the uh for the health and
[2:37] wellness of our prosecution and defense panel thank you mr president noted and we will discuss the
[2:42] matter with the parties senator yes mr president uh if i may be likewise allowed to submit a written
[2:52] explanation of my vote particularly on the matter of referring uh to the constitutional commission when
[3:00] the debates of the constitutional commission mr president where i believe uh there is a contrary
[3:05] opinion uh which the supreme court in fact uh ruled uh in previous uh rulings uh chavez the chavez case
[3:14] mr president for the records noted the gentleman may do so if there are no other matters we now proceed
[3:22] to trial the clerk of court will please call the case before this impeachment court case number zero zero
[3:30] four dash two zero two six in the matter of impeachment trial of vice president sara zimmerman duterte
[3:38] appearances for the prosecution good afternoon your honors we are 11 house prosecutors
[3:52] and 15 private prosecutors i am representative jervil jinky petrix luistro appearing for the prosecution
[4:01] we are ready your honor may we get the names of the other panel of prosecutors as well as the um
[4:08] counsel for prosecutors one by one for the record good afternoon if you're honest please we have
[4:18] already submitted the names of the public and private prosecutors who have uh formally entered their
[4:24] appearance a couple see representative jose manuel i diokno magalang pong humaharap sa senate impeachment
[4:31] court ready pop noted good afternoon your honors i am representative lila delima from the mama mayang
[4:41] liberal or ml party list respectfully appearing as public prosecutor we're ready good afternoon your
[4:52] honor i am joe congressman joel chuwa respectfully appearing for the public prosecutor uh representing
[5:02] the third district of manila good afternoon your honors i am uh arlene kakaabagao from ginagat islands
[5:13] representing the public prosecutor good afternoon your honors i am representative lawrence rivera
[5:22] defensor from the third district of iloilo respectfully appearing as public prosecutor good afternoon
[5:32] your honors representative jonathan keith flores of the second district of bukit-don as public
[5:37] prosecutor good afternoon your honors representative isabel maria jorge zamora from the lone district of
[5:46] san juan city as public prosecutor good afternoon representative terry don of because our party list
[5:54] we are ready your honor good afternoon your honors representative ramon rodrigo l gutierrez of 100
[6:02] party list respectfully entering appearance for their public prosecution good afternoon your honors
[6:10] representative lordans one of the first district of cagayan de oro city respectfully appearing for the
[6:16] prosecution for the record and for the information of um our um prosecutors the term used in our rules
[6:24] for the public prosecutors as you so mentioned should be panel of prosecutors of the house of representatives
[6:31] and in so far as i've been hearing the term private prosecutors the private lawyers will be referred to as
[6:38] counsel for the prosecutors um you may proceed good afternoon your honors i'm attorney lauren up good
[7:02] afternoon your honors i'm attorney lauren up pataho kapunan council for the prosecutors under the control and
[7:09] and supervision of the uh panel of uh prosecutors from the house magandang hapon kapo si attorney amando
[7:28] virgil de ligutan ng sapayan lim alvarez and ligutan law offices or saliga law from cebu city we are under
[7:37] the direct control and supervision of our honorable prosecutors uh from the house of representatives ready
[7:45] your honor good afternoon your honors i am may sancho divina gracia of the co and divina gracia law
[8:01] offices and i am respectfully entering my appearance as council for the prosecutors your honors good
[8:19] afternoon i'm attorney lino chris patao kapunan respectfully appearing as council for the prosecutors
[8:24] acting under direct control and supervision of the panel of prosecutors of the house of representatives
[8:40] good afternoon your honors attorney sonia castillo private prosecutor under direct control and
[8:46] supervision of the public prosecutors we are ready your honor good afternoon your honors attorney dina
[9:03] melisa lorenzo sing yan for council for the prop for the prosecutors we are ready on good afternoon
[9:25] your honors i'm attorney marford tfuwa appearing as council for the panel of prosecutors good afternoon i'm
[9:33] uh we are ready your honor good afternoon your honors i am attorney erwin g matib respectfully
[9:50] appearing as council for the prosecutors we are ready good afternoon your honors i'm attorney justine
[10:04] lamarca respectfully entering my appearance as council for the prosecutors we are ready your honor
[10:11] good afternoon your honors with respect uh james brian ibrahim ali of pekabarlo formerly ponce
[10:24] and rile reyes and manalastas um appearing as council for the prosecutors we're ready to proceed
[10:30] today your honor good afternoon your honors i'm attorney reynaldo robles of the law firm of chan robles
[10:45] and associates appearing as council for the prosecutors under the control and supervision
[10:51] of the public prosecutors ready your honor good afternoon your honors bethina nepomoceno zamora
[11:07] respectfully appearing as council for prosecutors we are ready please the court attorney theodore te
[11:19] appearing as council and under the control and supervision of the house panel of prosecutors good
[11:33] afternoon your honors attorney benjamin ciguatalozzi jr respectfully appearing as council for the
[11:39] prosecutors acting under the direct control and supervision the prosecution is ready your honors
[11:50] no no other entry of appearances that's it how many in all um representative um luistro 11 on the part of
[12:01] the house in so far as the panel of prosecutors is concerned and we understand your honor that only 13 private
[12:08] prosecutors enter their appearance today nevertheless your honor as manifested by the honorable jokno the
[12:16] written entry of appearance has been filed already with the honorable impeachment court nevertheless as
[12:21] they appear or will be um participating the trial kindly inform them to enter their formal appearance um
[12:29] during the trial your honor the entire 15 private prosecutors have entered their written
[12:37] have filed already their written entry of appearance with the impeachment court the articles of impeachment will
[12:42] be presented by four separate teams your honor that explains why the house prosecutors or the panel of
[12:50] prosecutors are joined by 15 private prosecutors your honor noted thank you ma'am senator cayetano was
[12:58] the what is the pleasure of the lady from taguig yes mr president i just have a question for the prosecution
[13:04] panel i understand that there is no requirement for the members of the house who form part of the
[13:09] prosecution to be lawyers um but may i know if uh they are all lawyers and if if some are not may we
[13:16] know who are not lawyers thank you your honor all the 11 house prosecutors are members of the legal
[13:23] profession does that satisfy the senator judge yes i was just curious um mr president because it's not a
[13:35] requirement so i was just curious if in fact they are lawyers thank you julie noted the response of
[13:40] the lead prosecutor is julie noted your honor may i just enter a correction to the earlier manifestation
[13:46] the lady may proceed instead of 13 14 private prosecutors are able to enter their appearance today
[13:53] nonetheless all the 15 have filed their written entry of appearance with the impeachment court your honor
[14:00] noted appearances for the respondent good afternoon your honors i am sheila season respectfully appearing
[14:14] for vice president sarah zimmermann duterte with the permission of the court
[14:20] um my co-counsel will enter their respective appearances you may proceed gregorio y narvasa the second
[14:38] christine r ferrer for the vice president good afternoon your honors michael wesley boa for the vice president
[14:50] good afternoon your honors carlo joaquin t narvasa for the vice president good afternoon your honors i am
[14:59] mark c vinluan for the vice president good afternoon your honors justin nicole bigular for the vice
[15:07] president good afternoon your honors lindon miguel c bacuel for the vice president good afternoon your honors i am
[15:19] ralph borja bodota for the vice president good afternoon your honors roberto nervasa botongbacal for the vice
[15:27] President Good afternoon your honors David Ronel M. Gulli
[15:33] VII for the Vice President Good afternoon your honors
[15:38] Carl Grace G. Uroseo for the Vice President Good afternoon
[15:44] your honors Clareline Radlock for the Vice President Good
[15:49] afternoon your honors Francesca Marie V. Flores for the
[15:51] Vice President Good afternoon your honors Miguel Carlos
[15:56] albar Fernandes for the Vice President Chair notes the
[16:03] entry of appearance of the Council's for Respondent Vice
[16:07] President Sarah Zimmerman-Zuterta and share likewise
[16:10] notes that the Vice President is not physically present but represented more than adequately by
[16:17] her counsels who entered their appearance. On May 19, 2026, the Court pursuant to Rule 7 of our
[16:25] rules issued the summons to Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte to answer to the articles of
[16:32] impeachment. On May 20, 2026, the Sergeant at Arms served the summons on the Vice President
[16:37] and made the return of service under oath before the Secretary of the Senate. Let the return be
[16:42] entered at large into the records pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment
[16:48] Trials. So ordered. Likewise, the Court received pleadings, comments, manifestations filed by
[16:55] the parties. All such pleadings, comments, manifestations, and requests filed by the
[16:59] parties as well as all issuances and orders of the clerk.
[17:02] Bili ang opisyal na bubudol ang bayan. Perhaps the greatest tragedy is where the conduct allegedly
[17:16] occurred. In the Department of Education, tama po sa TEP-8, the institution entrusted with
[17:27] teaching future generations honesty, responsibility, integrity. On the fourth article of impeachment,
[17:37] the evidence will show culpable violation of the Constitution, high crime, betrayal of public trust
[17:45] through conduct that threatens constitutional order. Among all allegations before this Court, none strikes more
[17:54] directly at the heart of constitutional order than this one. Ito na po ang pinakamatindi. And unlike in many
[18:03] cases which depends upon competing accounts, this evidence comes substantially from the respondent's own
[18:12] recorded public statements. The Court will see them. The Court will hear them. The Court will judge
[18:22] them. Public officials may disagree. We may criticize one another. They may compete fiercely for power.
[18:33] That is democracy. But democracy ends when violence begins.
[18:42] Sa kasaysayan ng ating republika, walang vice-presidente na may kaibigan na hitman. Ngayon lang, walang
[18:56] vice-presidente na nagpapatay ng Pangulo. Ngayon lang, walang vice-presidente na
[19:03] hantang magpapatay para lamang makaupo sa pwesto. Ngayon lang. The Constitution provides many means on how to
[19:13] resolve political conflict, election, legislation, public debate, judicial review, and even impeachment.
[19:25] But it does not permit threats. It does not permit violence. It does not permit people entrusted with power
[19:37] to place themselves above constitutional restraints. Your Honours, at the center of this case lies a simple
[19:49] question, perhaps the most important to any republic. When the people entrust power to a public official,
[19:59] does the public official remain accountable to the people? Or do the people become accountable to the public official?
[20:09] The Constitution's answer is very clear. Power belongs to the people. Public office is merely borrowed. And every borrowed
[20:23] power carries with it the obligation to account for its use. If a barangay treasurer must account for public
[20:34] fund, then so must the vice president. If an ordinary public servant can be investigated, then so can the
[20:44] highest officials of the government. If ordinary citizen is expected to obey the rules, then surely those who govern them
[20:55] must obey them must obey them first. Otherwise, what lessons do we teach our children? That there is law for the
[21:07] powerful and another for everyone else? That accountability exists only for the weak? That public office grants
[21:19] immunity against accountability? Your Honours, this is not the republic envisioned by the Constitution. This is not the
[21:32] republic deserved by the Filipino people. Therefore, the prosecution asks only this. Look at the evidence. Listen to the
[21:47] witnesses. Examine the records. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Judge this case. Not by politics. Not by popularity. Not by fear. Not by loyalty.
[22:02] Judge this case by the Constitution. Judge this case by the
[22:10] Constitution. Judge this case by the evidence. Years from now, future generations will not remember today's political
[22:23] alliances. They will not remember today's headlines. They will not remember today's slogans. What they will remember is when accountability
[22:35] was tested. The institutions of the republic stood firm. The institutions of the republic stood firm. They will remember only one thing. What this
[22:44] court did when the Constitution called. Future generations will not ask how powerful the respondent was. They will not ask how loud the
[23:00] political debate became. The political debate became. They will ask one thing. When the Constitution called. Did the
[23:08] Constitution answer? Your Honours, this is that moment. This is the moment the Constitution anticipated. This is the moment when accountability must mean exactly what it says. This is the moment when public office must truly remain a public trust. This is the moment when the
[23:24] This is the moment when accountability must mean exactly what it says.
[23:33] This is the moment when public office must truly remain a public trust.
[23:38] This is the moment when the Republic must demonstrate that laws are applied equally to the powerful and the powerless alike.
[23:49] At matapos marinig ang mga saksi, matapos masuri ang mga dokumento, matapos matimbang lahat ng ebidensya,
[24:03] ang prosekusyon ay naniniwala at naninindigan.
[24:09] Isa lamang ang maliwanag na konklusyon.
[24:13] Ang tiwalang ipinaggaloob ay nilabag.
[24:17] Ang kapangyarihang ipinahiram ay inabuso.
[24:22] At ang konstitusyon mismo ang humihingi ng pananagutan.
[24:26] Amid the clarity of the mandate of the Constitution,
[24:34] political noise continues, political squabbles continues, political division continues.
[24:42] Please, let me conclude.
[24:45] Salus populi es supremolex.
[24:49] The welfare of the people is the supreme law.
[24:55] Thank you, Your Honor.
[24:55] The opening remarks of the prosecution through the lead counsel is duly noted.
[25:02] Opening remarks for the respondent.
[25:07] Counsel for the respondent has 15 minutes, and we will give you the same latitude we gave.
[25:13] Counsel for the prosecution for an additional three minutes, should you so need it.
[25:17] You may proceed, ma'am.
[25:18] Thank you, Your Honor.
[25:19] Your Honors, fellow Filipinos, good afternoon.
[25:24] As we begin today, the impeachment trial of the Vice President, and in the days ahead,
[25:30] this court will undertake its constitutional task of receiving and weighing the party's evidence,
[25:38] and ultimately to decide whether these pieces of evidence justify either a judgment of conviction or acquittal,
[25:46] guided only by its members' conscience, and their solemn oath to do impartial justice.
[25:53] The present undertaking of this court, therefore, not only carries the weight of the Constitution,
[25:59] but also the imprint of our nation's history, because the Filipino people have shown that they never forget.
[26:09] We, as a nation, never forget.
[26:13] But why is the act of remembering important?
[26:18] What does it matter to our history and to ordinary Filipinos?
[26:23] Because in this trial, the prosecution proposes that we unseat the Vice President elected to office
[26:33] by more than 32 million Filipino people, more than the number of votes cast for the sitting President,
[26:42] and much greater than any of the votes secured by each of the members of the House of Representatives
[26:47] who now are here to prosecute her and seek to undo this people's choice.
[26:54] Sa makatwid, ang malinaw na layunin sa likod ng mga paratang na ito ay ang pagpapatalsik sa isang vice-presidenteng inihalal
[27:04] ng mahigit 32 milyong Pilipino at bunga ng kanilang malayang pagpapasya.
[27:13] Whatever one's political persuasion is, the reality is that the prosecution now comes before this court
[27:19] to remove a vice president chosen by an overwhelming number of the electorate.
[27:24] You all have heard the prosecution say repeatedly that this is because they seek accountability,
[27:32] that the people have a right to hold their leaders accountable.
[27:35] This is not a matter of debate.
[27:38] Indeed, the people have a right to demand accountability from their leaders.
[27:43] What we have yet to hear from the prosecution, however, is this.
[27:50] When the Constitution declared under Section 1, Article 11, that public office is a public trust
[27:58] and that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people,
[28:05] serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency,
[28:12] act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives,
[28:18] the Constitution does not only speak to the vice president.
[28:22] It also demands the same standards from the prosecutors.
[28:27] Being public officers themselves, the public prosecutors and the members of the House of Representatives
[28:34] are also held to the same constitutional standard.
[28:39] And so we must remember what history tells us.
[28:43] This is not the first time that members of the House of Representatives
[28:47] have attempted to remove the vice president,
[28:51] and in a manner not compliant with the Constitution.
[28:55] In a July 2025 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously declared
[29:02] in Duterte v. House of Representatives, GR numbers 278353 and 278359,
[29:11] that the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives
[29:14] were tainted with grave abuse of discretion,
[29:18] rendering the articles of impeachment that the House transmitted last year
[29:22] to the Senate as void abd in issue.
[29:25] Early this year, the Supreme Court unanimously denied with finality
[29:29] the House of Representatives motioned for reconsideration of that decision
[29:35] with a reminder that while impeachment is a powerful democratic process
[29:41] to call out corruption and grave abuse,
[29:44] impeachment can be abused,
[29:46] and that impeachment should never be abused
[29:50] to maintain the hegemonic dominance of greed
[29:53] by shaming those who occupy high government positions
[29:57] into preventing them from doing what they were sworn to do.
[30:02] But perhaps the most enduring reminder of the Supreme Court
[30:06] that we must not forget in the entire course of this trial
[30:10] is that in the words of the court,
[30:14] the rule of law that does justice is our lodestar,
[30:19] and that justice includes accountability.
[30:22] Justice includes fairness.
[30:25] Without fairness, there is abuse.
[30:28] This fairness is what our democracy is all about.
[30:34] It is in light of these reminders that we draw attention
[30:36] to certain fundamental legal principles
[30:39] that we think we must not forget throughout this trial.
[30:42] Mga batayang prinsipyo
[30:44] na dapat nating tandaan sa buong panahon
[30:47] ang paglilitis na ito,
[30:49] anuman ang ating kulay o politika.
[30:52] If we are to be true and honest
[30:55] to our proclaimed values,
[30:56] such as the pursuit of accountability,
[30:59] justice, and integrity in our system of government,
[31:03] then we must remain possessed of an unyielding resolve
[31:06] to ensure that the trial and judgment in this case
[31:10] are done in accordance with the command of the Constitution,
[31:14] the majesty of the law,
[31:15] and the discipline required by the rules.
[31:19] Otherwise, those who stand in sanctimonious judgment
[31:24] of the Vice President will send the clear message
[31:27] that the law can be bent
[31:29] when it suits the convenience of the powerful,
[31:31] and that justice can be sacrificed
[31:34] at the altar of partisan interests.
[31:37] Mahalagang tandaan ang mahigpit na paalala
[31:40] ng ating Korte Suprema.
[31:43] Impeachment is not a purely political proceeding.
[31:47] It is primarily a legal, political, and constitutional mechanism.
[31:54] Ibig sabihin,
[31:56] kailangang naayon sa batas at konstitusyon
[32:00] ang anumang proseso nito.
[32:02] According to the Constitution,
[32:05] it is the Senate that shall have the sole power
[32:08] to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
[32:11] This power is not shared.
[32:13] The Constitution gives no other body,
[32:17] department, tribunal, agency,
[32:20] or a mere committee of any of these institutions
[32:22] the power to try an impeachment case.
[32:26] The House merely initiates.
[32:28] The Senate tries.
[32:30] Yet, we have seen the Committee on Justice
[32:33] conduct what its chairperson,
[32:35] the lead prosecutor in this case,
[32:37] described as a mini-trial,
[32:40] which, as we all had witnessed,
[32:42] became a vast fishing expedition
[32:45] of alleged evidence
[32:46] that were not even part of the impeachment complaints
[32:50] under its consideration
[32:52] and which the respondent accused was made to answer.
[32:57] In that mini-trial,
[32:59] we saw how the purported pieces of evidence
[33:01] were curated to construct a narrative
[33:05] against the vice president
[33:06] even before this case reaches trial.
[33:10] The articles of impeachment
[33:11] presented before this court
[33:13] as an exercise of the House's power
[33:16] to initiate impeachment cases
[33:18] are therefore, in sober truth,
[33:21] the product of an impermissible intrusion
[33:24] of clear constitutional boundaries.
[33:27] Over the course of the impeachment trial,
[33:30] the prosecution will attempt
[33:32] to convince this court
[33:33] and the court of public opinion
[33:35] that the allegations
[33:36] in the articles of impeachment
[33:38] are supported by materials
[33:40] they obtained during their mini-trial
[33:42] and that evidence exists
[33:44] to sustain a judgment of conviction.
[33:47] They will claim
[33:47] that the notices of suspension
[33:49] and disallowance issued by the COA
[33:51] and the COA decision
[33:53] denying the vice president's appeal
[33:55] of that disallowance
[33:56] support their accusations
[33:57] with the release of that decision
[33:59] by the COA
[34:00] conveniently timed
[34:02] and coinciding
[34:03] with the committee hearings.
[34:04] They will claim
[34:05] that the certifications
[34:07] of the PSA
[34:08] confirmed their allegation
[34:09] that recipients
[34:11] of the confidential funds
[34:12] do not exist
[34:13] even though they listed
[34:15] one Mary Grace Piatos
[34:17] in their pre-trial brief
[34:18] as among their witnesses
[34:19] or that the liquidation
[34:21] of the confidential funds
[34:22] in a span of 11 days
[34:24] was allegedly swift
[34:26] as to invite suspicion.
[34:28] The prosecution will assert
[34:30] that the supposed NBI findings
[34:32] of similar signatures
[34:34] across a number
[34:35] of acknowledgement receipts
[34:36] submitted to the COA
[34:38] are supportive
[34:39] of their conclusion
[34:40] that the disbursements
[34:41] of the confidential funds
[34:43] were irregular.
[34:45] What the prosecution avoided
[34:46] informing the public
[34:47] so far are these.
[34:49] That it was
[34:50] the then-secretary
[34:51] of the Department of Budget
[34:53] and Management,
[34:54] Amena Pangandaman,
[34:55] who issued a memorandum
[34:57] for the President
[34:58] through Executive Secretary
[34:59] Lucas Bersamin
[35:00] on October 18, 2022
[35:03] recommending the approval
[35:05] of the Office
[35:06] of the Vice President's
[35:07] request for confidential funds.
[35:10] That the Office
[35:10] of the President
[35:11] did in fact approve
[35:12] that recommendation
[35:13] of the DBM
[35:14] through a memorandum
[35:16] from the Executive Secretary
[35:17] dated November 28, 2022
[35:20] and signed
[35:21] by the former Executive Secretary
[35:23] Lucas Bersamin
[35:24] by order of the President.
[35:25] that on December 13, 2022,
[35:29] the DBM issued
[35:30] a special allotment order
[35:31] number CRO-BMB-C-22-001-2004
[35:38] signed by former Secretary
[35:40] Amena Pangandaman
[35:41] to cover the request
[35:43] of financial assistance subsidy
[35:45] and confidential funds
[35:46] of the OVP
[35:47] that notwithstanding
[35:49] the impending end
[35:50] of the fiscal year,
[35:52] the confidential funds
[35:53] were nonetheless
[35:54] released to the OVP
[35:55] on December 20, 2022
[35:58] under this documented
[36:00] approval process.
[36:02] That the COA decision
[36:03] is far from being final.
[36:06] That there is a pending motion
[36:07] for reconsideration
[36:08] of that decision.
[36:09] That, assuming our duendo,
[36:12] the COA denies
[36:13] that MR today
[36:14] or while this trial
[36:15] is ongoing
[36:16] as could plausibly happen
[36:17] under the circumstances,
[36:19] the respondent accused
[36:21] still has legal remedies
[36:23] available under the law
[36:24] and rules
[36:25] and can file a petition
[36:26] to question the validity
[36:27] of any forthcoming resolution
[36:30] of the COA on the MR
[36:31] under Rule 64
[36:33] via petition for certiorari
[36:36] under Rule 65
[36:37] of the rules of court
[36:38] and more importantly,
[36:41] that nothing
[36:42] in the notice of disallowance
[36:44] or COA decision
[36:45] states any findings
[36:47] of supposed misuse
[36:49] of confidential funds
[36:50] as confirmed
[36:51] by attorney Gloria Camora
[36:54] when she was asked
[36:56] on this point
[36:57] during the committee hearing
[36:58] on April 14, 2026.
[37:02] Across all other articles,
[37:04] the prosecution
[37:05] will lay a landscape
[37:07] of what it deems
[37:08] to be their evidence
[37:10] in support of their
[37:11] speculations
[37:12] and conclusions.
[37:13] We are not strangers
[37:15] to all these accusations
[37:16] precisely because
[37:17] this was not
[37:19] the first time
[37:20] these narratives
[37:21] were foisted
[37:22] into the minds
[37:23] of the general public.
[37:26] We have heard
[37:26] the same tales
[37:28] and stories
[37:28] of these accusations
[37:30] since 2024
[37:31] when the House
[37:33] conducted its
[37:34] Quad Com hearings
[37:35] and most recently
[37:36] the mini trial
[37:37] of its Committee on Justice.
[37:38] But what we must
[37:40] not forget
[37:41] amid all
[37:42] these accusations
[37:43] is the fundamental
[37:44] legal principle
[37:45] that the burden
[37:47] of proof
[37:48] never shifts.
[37:50] The burden
[37:51] of proof
[37:52] never shifts.
[37:54] He who accuses
[37:55] must prove
[37:56] his allegations
[37:57] with evidence
[37:59] that meets
[38:00] not only the degree
[38:01] of proof required
[38:02] but also meets
[38:03] the evidentiary standards
[38:05] of admissibility,
[38:07] credibility,
[38:08] relevance,
[38:09] materiality,
[38:10] and competence.
[38:10] We therefore
[38:12] should not
[38:12] lose sight
[38:13] of the core
[38:14] principle
[38:15] that the burden
[38:16] of proof
[38:16] is on the prosecution
[38:18] and unless
[38:19] it discharges
[38:20] that burden,
[38:22] the accused
[38:22] need not even
[38:23] offer evidence
[38:24] on her behalf
[38:25] and she will be
[38:26] entitled to an acquittal.
[38:28] This is the law
[38:29] then.
[38:30] This is the law
[38:31] now.
[38:33] And the underlying
[38:33] principle for this
[38:35] burden of proof
[38:35] is simple.
[38:37] Under our Constitution,
[38:38] every accused
[38:40] is presumed
[38:41] innocent
[38:41] until proven
[38:42] otherwise.
[38:44] An accused
[38:44] has in her favor
[38:45] the presumption
[38:46] of innocence
[38:47] which the Bill
[38:48] of Rights
[38:48] guarantees.
[38:50] This also brings
[38:51] to fore
[38:52] the reality
[38:52] that in the words
[38:54] of the Supreme
[38:54] Court in
[38:55] People vs.
[38:56] Pagal,
[38:57] the individual
[38:58] citizen is
[38:59] but the speck
[39:00] of particular
[39:01] molecule
[39:02] vis-a-vis
[39:02] the vast
[39:03] and overwhelming
[39:04] powers of government
[39:06] and his only
[39:07] guarantee
[39:08] against oppression
[39:09] and tyranny
[39:10] are his fundamental
[39:11] liberties under
[39:12] the Bill
[39:13] of Rights
[39:13] which shield him
[39:14] in times of need.
[39:16] Sa madaling
[39:17] salita,
[39:18] kinikilala
[39:19] ng ating
[39:20] saligang batas
[39:21] na sa bawat
[39:22] paglilitis
[39:23] ang isang
[39:24] individual
[39:24] ay nahaharap
[39:26] sa malalim
[39:27] at napakalaking
[39:28] makinarya
[39:29] ng buong
[39:30] Estado.
[39:31] At ang tanging
[39:32] sandigan lamang
[39:33] niya
[39:33] laban sa anumang
[39:35] pangaabuso
[39:36] ng kapangyarihan
[39:37] ay ang kanyang
[39:38] mga batayang
[39:39] karapatan
[39:40] sa ilalim
[39:40] ng ating
[39:41] konstitusyon.
[39:42] Kaya't
[39:43] mahalagang
[39:44] linawin
[39:44] na sa gitna
[39:45] ng pagtatangkang
[39:47] ikondisyon
[39:47] ang kaisipan
[39:48] ng mamamayang
[39:49] Pilipino
[39:50] at sa gitna
[39:51] ng walang
[39:52] humpay
[39:52] na komentaryo
[39:53] sa mga
[39:54] pampublikong
[39:55] espasyo
[39:56] wala pang
[39:57] maituturing
[39:58] na anumang
[39:58] ebidensya
[39:59] o aligasyon
[40:00] na napapatunayan
[40:02] ang prosekusyon
[40:03] sa simpleng
[40:04] dahilan na
[40:05] ang bawat
[40:05] ebidensya
[40:06] ay kailangang
[40:07] dumaan
[40:08] muna
[40:08] sa paglilitis
[40:10] at pagsusuri
[40:11] ng korteng
[40:12] may tanging
[40:13] kapangyarihan
[40:13] sa ilalim
[40:14] ng ating
[40:15] saligang
[40:15] batas.
[40:16] Higit sa lahat,
[40:18] ang anumang
[40:19] paglilitis
[40:20] ay kailangang
[40:21] na ayon
[40:22] sa itinatakda
[40:23] ng ating
[40:23] batas
[40:24] at konstitusyon
[40:25] at hindi
[40:26] lamang
[40:27] sa kagustuhan
[40:27] ng iilang
[40:28] may hawak
[40:29] ng kapangyarihan.
[40:30] One
[40:30] might ask
[40:31] why
[40:33] is it
[40:33] important
[40:34] that we
[40:34] must not
[40:35] forget
[40:35] these
[40:36] basic
[40:36] principles?
[40:38] The ruling
[40:38] of the
[40:38] Supreme
[40:39] Court
[40:39] tells us
[40:40] why.
[40:41] The Bill
[40:42] of Rights
[40:42] applies to
[40:43] the entire
[40:44] impeachment
[40:45] process
[40:45] because in
[40:47] as much
[40:47] as our
[40:48] court
[40:48] recognizes
[40:49] that impeachment
[40:50] is a
[40:50] political
[40:51] process,
[40:52] it reminds
[40:53] us that
[40:54] it is not
[40:54] a purely
[40:55] political
[40:56] process but
[40:57] a legal
[40:57] and constitutional
[40:58] mechanism.
[40:59] Thus,
[41:00] if we are
[41:01] to uphold
[41:01] the rule
[41:02] of law,
[41:03] serve justice,
[41:04] and invoke
[41:05] the accountability
[41:05] mechanism,
[41:07] then this
[41:08] court and
[41:09] we as a
[41:09] people must
[41:10] guarantee
[41:11] that all
[41:12] efforts to
[41:13] hold our
[41:14] leaders
[41:14] accountable
[41:15] must be
[41:16] done right.
[41:18] This we
[41:19] must not
[41:20] forget.
[41:22] I thank the
[41:22] court and
[41:23] the public
[41:24] for the
[41:24] privilege of
[41:25] your time.
[41:26] May God
[41:26] bless our
[41:26] country.
[41:28] Opening
[41:29] statement
[41:29] of the
[41:30] counsel
[41:30] correspondent,
[41:31] as Julie
[41:32] noted and
[41:33] entered into
[41:33] the records,
[41:34] the court
[41:36] will now
[41:37] proceed to
[41:38] dispose of
[41:40] some of
[41:41] the incidents
[41:42] that were
[41:42] brought up
[41:43] during the
[41:44] pre-trial
[41:45] conference as
[41:47] well as
[41:47] other pending
[41:48] matters and
[41:49] motions.
[41:51] First, on
[41:52] the sequence
[41:53] of the
[41:53] presentation of
[41:54] the articles
[41:55] of impeachment,
[41:57] the pre-trial
[41:58] order stated
[41:59] that the
[41:59] prosecution is
[42:00] a free hand
[42:01] to determine
[42:01] the sequence
[42:02] of the
[42:03] presentation
[42:03] of the
[42:04] articles of
[42:04] impeachment.
[42:05] However,
[42:06] respondent will
[42:07] be similarly
[42:07] accorded the
[42:08] same right
[42:08] insofar as
[42:10] the presentation
[42:10] of their
[42:11] evidence and
[42:12] witnesses in
[42:13] chief is
[42:14] concerned.
[42:15] May we now
[42:16] learn from
[42:17] the panel of
[42:19] prosecutors
[42:19] rather, what
[42:21] will be the
[42:22] sequence of
[42:22] presentation of
[42:23] the articles of
[42:24] impeachment that
[42:26] they intend to
[42:26] pursue.
[42:30] Attorney
[42:30] Jokno is
[42:31] recognized.
[42:32] You may
[42:32] proceed, sir.
[42:33] Thank you,
[42:33] Your Honor.
[42:34] The first
[42:35] article we will
[42:37] be presenting
[42:38] will be
[42:39] article 4 on
[42:40] grave threats.
[42:41] Second will be
[42:43] confidential funds,
[42:44] article 1.
[42:46] Third, bribery.
[42:48] That is
[42:48] article 3.
[42:50] And the
[42:50] fourth is
[42:51] unexplained wealth,
[42:52] Your Honors.
[42:53] That's
[42:54] article 4.
[42:58] No, 2.
[42:59] I'm sorry,
[43:00] article 2.
[43:01] I stand
[43:01] corrected.
[43:02] So, the
[43:02] sequence of
[43:03] presentations shall
[43:04] be article 4,
[43:06] article 1,
[43:08] article 3,
[43:09] and then
[43:10] article 2.
[43:11] Yes, that is
[43:12] correct, Your
[43:13] Honor.
[43:13] So, I presume
[43:14] that beginning
[43:15] tomorrow, once we
[43:17] issue the subpoena
[43:17] for your first set
[43:18] of witnesses, you
[43:20] shall begin with
[43:21] article 4.
[43:22] Yes, Your
[43:23] Honor.
[43:24] Again, chair rules
[43:25] that the respondents
[43:26] have the same and
[43:27] equal privilege of
[43:28] presenting its case
[43:29] as it so desires
[43:31] when it's time to
[43:32] present its
[43:33] evidence-in-chief
[43:33] shall come.
[43:35] What is the
[43:35] pleasure of the
[43:36] council for
[43:36] respondent?
[43:37] Thank you, Your
[43:38] Honor.
[43:38] May I ask if the
[43:40] prosecution is ready
[43:41] to present its
[43:42] first witness today
[43:43] because the
[43:43] defense is ready
[43:44] today, Your
[43:44] Honor.
[43:46] Julie noted.
[43:46] We will get to
[43:47] that later.
[43:50] Next, I
[43:50] take them in the
[43:51] agenda.
[43:51] If Your
[43:52] Honor, please.
[43:52] Yes,
[43:53] Representative
[43:53] Jokno.
[43:53] I just noticed
[43:54] that Your
[43:55] Honor had already
[43:56] directed the
[43:57] council for the
[43:58] defense not to
[43:59] propound questions
[44:00] to the
[44:01] prosecution.
[44:02] This is already
[44:03] the second time
[44:04] that she's doing
[44:04] that.
[44:05] She appears to
[44:06] be assuming or
[44:07] aggregating the
[44:08] powers of the
[44:09] court because as I
[44:10] understand the
[44:11] rules, it's only
[44:11] the court that
[44:12] can propound
[44:13] questions to the
[44:14] councils.
[44:15] Your Honor, may I
[44:16] comment?
[44:17] The lady may
[44:18] comment.
[44:18] Counsel for
[44:19] response may
[44:19] comment.
[44:20] Yes, Your
[44:20] Honor.
[44:21] I take exception
[44:21] to that
[44:22] manifestation of
[44:23] the good
[44:24] counsel.
[44:24] In fact, the
[44:25] record would
[44:25] show and if we
[44:26] can run the
[44:27] transcript back,
[44:28] my question was
[44:29] addressed to the
[44:30] presiding officer,
[44:31] Your Honor.
[44:32] Let us move
[44:33] forward, gentlemen
[44:34] and lady.
[44:36] Next item for
[44:37] us to dispense
[44:38] with, the
[44:39] witness disclosure
[44:40] rule.
[44:42] The prosecution
[44:43] proposed a
[44:44] three-day witness
[44:45] disclosure rule.
[44:47] the respondents
[44:47] proposed a
[44:48] five-day witness
[44:49] disclosure rule,
[44:50] but they
[44:51] understand the
[44:52] prosecution is
[44:53] amenable to the
[44:54] five-day witness
[44:55] disclosure rule.
[44:56] Would that be
[44:57] correct,
[44:57] Representative Jokko?
[44:58] We are amenable
[44:58] to the five-day
[44:59] disclosure rule.
[45:00] Chair, therefore,
[45:01] rules that in so
[45:02] far as disclosure
[45:03] to either party of
[45:05] a witness to be
[45:05] presented, not
[45:08] mentioned in the
[45:09] pre-trial order
[45:11] and or briefs of
[45:12] the parties shall
[45:13] be for five days.
[45:15] This is subject
[45:16] also to the
[45:17] chair's reminder
[45:18] that at the
[45:19] end of every
[45:21] week, that
[45:22] would be a
[45:22] Wednesday while
[45:23] we are on
[45:23] recess, we
[45:24] will ask the
[45:25] party presenting
[45:26] their case in
[45:27] chief to
[45:28] enumerate the
[45:29] witnesses they
[45:30] intend to
[45:30] present for the
[45:31] following week
[45:32] with the
[45:33] corresponding motion
[45:34] for the request
[45:35] of issuance of
[45:36] subpoena to be
[45:37] submitted the
[45:38] day before or on
[45:39] Tuesday so that
[45:40] we can act on it
[45:41] before the last
[45:42] day of the week
[45:43] so that the
[45:44] subpoena can be
[45:45] properly issued
[45:46] in due course
[45:47] and in due
[45:48] time.
[45:48] It's ordered
[45:49] on the
[45:51] examination of
[45:52] a witness by
[45:53] more than one
[45:54] counsel as
[45:55] propounded or
[45:56] proposed by the
[45:57] prosecution.
[45:59] The rules of the
[46:01] Senate are clear.
[46:02] Article 15 of the
[46:04] rules on impeachment
[46:05] states witnesses
[46:07] shall be examined
[46:07] by one person on
[46:09] behalf of the
[46:09] party producing
[46:10] them and then
[46:12] cross-examined by
[46:13] one person on
[46:15] the other side.
[46:17] Court therefore
[46:18] rules that as a
[46:20] rule only one
[46:22] person shall
[46:23] present a witness
[46:24] however in the
[46:26] exigency of the
[46:27] delivery and
[46:28] administration of
[46:29] justice and under
[46:31] certain exceptions
[46:32] the court may
[46:33] allow more than
[46:34] one counsel to
[46:35] examine and or
[46:37] propound questions
[46:38] to a witness to
[46:39] cite an example
[46:40] just for the sake
[46:41] of the record.
[46:42] If for example
[46:43] the panel of
[46:44] prosecutor disagrees
[46:46] with how the
[46:47] counsel for
[46:48] prosecutor is
[46:48] handling the case
[46:49] the panel of
[46:51] prosecutors or one
[46:52] of them can
[46:52] take over and
[46:54] that is but
[46:54] proper and
[46:55] should be allowed
[46:56] and will therefore
[46:57] be considered as
[46:58] an exemption to
[46:58] that rule and
[46:59] other similar
[47:00] exigencies will be
[47:02] allowed in order
[47:03] to afford the
[47:04] orderly administration
[47:05] of justice and of
[47:06] these proceedings.
[47:08] So ordered in so
[47:10] far as the BIR
[47:11] box is concerned
[47:12] what is the
[47:13] pleasure of?
[47:14] In so far as the
[47:17] BIR box is
[47:19] concerned, this box
[47:24] was turned over to
[47:25] the Senate as part
[47:27] of the documents
[47:28] including the
[47:29] articles of
[47:29] impeachment.
[47:30] However, the
[47:32] court is not yet
[47:33] in custodia
[47:34] of this box given
[47:35] that there is no
[47:36] lawful order issued
[47:37] by the court for
[47:38] this box to be
[47:39] turned over to the
[47:41] Senate.
[47:42] More so that it is
[47:43] not yet offered in
[47:44] evidence not even as
[47:45] of yet mark the
[47:48] chair therefore orders
[47:49] that the BIR box
[47:51] closed, sealed and
[47:53] as it is received be
[47:55] sent back to the
[47:56] BIR or the Bureau
[47:58] of Internal Revenue
[47:59] without prejudice to
[48:00] any action that the
[48:01] court may take if a
[48:03] motion will be filed
[48:04] by either party for
[48:05] the issuance of a
[48:06] subpoena and we
[48:07] shall await action if
[48:08] any by the BIR
[48:09] commissioner should
[48:10] that time come.
[48:12] So ordered.
[48:13] Now in so far as the
[48:14] subpoena requested by
[48:16] the prosecution for
[48:17] the two NBI agents
[48:19] may I request the
[48:20] clerk of court to
[48:20] kindly read the
[48:21] motion for the
[48:22] issuance of
[48:22] subpoena ad
[48:23] testificandum.
[48:32] The prosecution to
[48:35] the undersigned
[48:35] public prosecutors
[48:36] respectfully request
[48:37] the issuance of
[48:38] subpoenas ad
[48:39] testificandum directing
[48:41] the following witnesses
[48:42] to appear and testify
[48:43] before the Honorable
[48:44] Impeachment Court on
[48:45] July 6, July 7 and
[48:47] July 8, 2026 at
[48:48] 2 p.m.
[48:49] as their testimonies
[48:50] are material relevant
[48:52] and necessary to
[48:52] establish the
[48:53] allegations under
[48:54] article 4 of the
[48:55] articles of
[48:55] impeachment as well
[48:57] as matters
[48:57] necessarily incidental
[48:58] thereto and for
[49:00] purposes of the
[49:01] identification and
[49:02] authentication of
[49:02] other evidence
[49:03] before the
[49:04] Impeachment Court.
[49:05] Number 1,
[49:06] Attorney Jeremy C.
[49:07] Lotok, Regional
[49:08] Director, National
[49:09] Bureau of
[49:10] Investigation.
[49:11] Number 2, John
[49:12] Mark Calilong, Senior
[49:14] Agent, National
[49:14] Bureau of
[49:15] Investigation.
[49:16] Respectfully
[49:16] submitted, Kansas
[49:17] City for Pasay
[49:18] City, July 1,
[49:19] 2026.
[49:21] We are not in
[49:22] receipt of any
[49:23] reservation or
[49:24] objection on the
[49:25] part of the
[49:25] respondent, counsel
[49:27] for respondent rather.
[49:28] However, Chair
[49:29] would like to ask
[49:30] the prosecutors,
[49:32] do you only request
[49:33] for a subpoena
[49:34] ad testificandum or
[49:36] a subpoena
[49:37] duces tecum as well?
[49:41] If I understand
[49:42] the record, Your
[49:43] Honour, please
[49:44] say subpoena both
[49:45] for ad testificandum
[49:47] and duces tecum.
[49:48] The motion
[49:51] filed by the
[49:52] prosecutors is
[49:53] only for a subpoena
[49:54] ad testificandum.
[49:55] That's why the
[49:55] Chair is clarifying.
[49:58] Your Honour.
[49:59] I stand
[50:00] corrected, if
[50:00] Your Honour, please.
[50:01] It's just for ad
[50:02] testificandum.
[50:03] Counselor,
[50:04] correspondent.
[50:04] If I may, Your
[50:05] Honour, just to set
[50:06] the record state, the
[50:08] presiding officer
[50:08] earlier inquired or
[50:10] mentioned that the
[50:13] court is not in
[50:14] receipt of any
[50:15] objection from the
[50:16] respondent, but just
[50:17] to set the record
[50:18] straight, the
[50:21] respondent has not
[50:23] received any copy of
[50:25] the request for a
[50:25] subpoena being
[50:27] mentioned today, Your
[50:28] Honour.
[50:28] What we received,
[50:33] Your Honour, was a
[50:35] manifestation containing
[50:37] the list of the
[50:39] witnesses of the
[50:41] prosecution for July 6,
[50:43] 7, and 8, in Your
[50:44] Honour.
[50:45] And so it would be
[50:46] impossible for the
[50:47] defense or the
[50:49] respondent to object or
[50:51] to even comment on a
[50:52] request that we were not
[50:53] served with any copy with.
[50:55] The two witnesses
[50:56] against Tumas subpoena
[50:59] has been requested by
[51:00] the prosecution or
[51:01] mentioned in the
[51:02] pretrial brief of the
[51:03] prosecution and was not
[51:06] commented on by the
[51:08] respondents in their
[51:09] pretrial brief.
[51:10] But if you do have any
[51:11] objections now, the
[51:12] court would be more
[51:13] than glad, or
[51:14] reservations, the
[51:15] court would be more
[51:15] than glad to hear it
[51:16] before ruling on the
[51:17] motion for the issuance
[51:18] of a subpoena on these
[51:19] two NBI agents.
[51:20] At this point, Your
[51:21] Honour, that's fine.
[51:22] We'll just place on
[51:23] record our objections as
[51:26] the testimonial evidence
[51:27] is presented.
[51:29] Julie noted, Chair
[51:31] hereby orders that the
[51:32] subpoena ad
[51:34] testificandum and
[51:35] duces tecum be
[51:37] issued to the
[51:39] aforementioned two
[51:40] NBI agents contained
[51:43] in the motion filed by
[51:46] the Council for the
[51:48] prosecutors.
[51:49] Although by nature
[51:50] subpoena is ex parte,
[51:53] we would instruct,
[51:54] Chair would instruct the
[51:55] clerk of court to
[51:56] kindly upload.
[51:57] all of the filings of
[51:59] all of the parties to
[52:00] the website for the
[52:01] information not only of
[52:02] the senator judges, but
[52:03] also of the parties and
[52:05] their councils.
[52:06] The chair earlier,
[52:07] um, council for
[52:09] respondents said that
[52:10] witnesses for the
[52:11] succeeding week shall be
[52:13] manifested in open
[52:14] court on the last day of
[52:15] the trial, in this case
[52:16] by Wednesday, in so far
[52:17] as the next week's, next
[52:19] week's trial is
[52:20] concerned.
[52:21] Sorted.
[52:21] Now, in so far as the
[52:24] request for subpoena for
[52:26] bank records and
[52:27] AMLC records, Chair
[52:29] recognizes the clerk of
[52:31] court to kindly read and
[52:32] spread into the records
[52:34] the request for the, for the
[52:36] issuance of subpoena, both,
[52:38] I believe, ad testificandum and
[52:40] duces tecum, um, or just
[52:41] duces tecum for the
[52:43] aforementioned documents.
[52:44] The clerk of court may
[52:45] proceed.
[52:46] Request for issuance of
[52:47] subpoena duces tecum.
[52:49] The prosecution, respectfully
[52:51] request the issuance of a
[52:53] subpoena duces tecum to the
[52:55] branch manager of the
[52:56] following banks.
[52:58] BPI Julia Vargas branch, BPI
[53:01] Greenhills Elsa branch,
[53:03] Philippine Savings Bank
[53:04] Wilson branch, BDO
[53:06] Unibank Inc. Davao CM
[53:08] Rector branch, Metro
[53:09] Bank Davao Ecolan branch, BDO
[53:12] Unibank Davao Rizal branch,
[53:14] Security Bank Bikutan branch,
[53:17] Land Bank San Pedro branch,
[53:19] Philippine Savings Bank Davao
[53:21] MADR branch, requiring him
[53:31] or her or his or her
[53:32] authorized representative to
[53:34] submit to the clerk of the
[53:35] impeachment court on or
[53:37] before 24 June, 2026 at 9
[53:39] AM.
[53:40] The certified true copies of
[53:42] all records, documents, books,
[53:45] papers, electronic data,
[53:47] communications, and
[53:48] information in the possession,
[53:50] custody, or control of the bank
[53:52] relating to any account,
[53:54] deposit, investment, trust, loan,
[53:57] safety deposit, or other
[53:58] financial transactions.
[54:00] Maintained, open, closed,
[54:02] controlled, beneficially owned,
[54:04] or jointly held by
[54:05] Sarah Z.30 and or
[54:08] Manassius R. Carpio,
[54:10] whether individually, jointly with each other,
[54:13] jointly with any other person,
[54:15] or through any authorized representative,
[54:18] nominee, attorney in fact, or signatory
[54:21] for the period January 1, 2007
[54:25] to December 31, 2025,
[54:28] including but not limited to
[54:29] number one, records identifying
[54:32] account numbers, account types,
[54:34] know your customer documents,
[54:36] such as but not limited to
[54:37] customer information forms,
[54:39] and signature cards.
[54:40] Number two, monthly bank statements,
[54:42] average daily balances
[54:44] per calendar year,
[54:46] year-end balances from
[54:47] January 1, 2007
[54:49] to December 31, 2025.
[54:51] Number three, all account and
[54:53] transaction records, ledgers,
[54:55] and journals, and similar instruments
[54:57] from January 1, 2007
[54:58] to December 31, 2025,
[55:01] and number four,
[55:02] all other relevant bank documents.
[55:05] Request for subpoena
[55:06] due to the Anti-Money Laundering Council
[55:09] to Honorable Ellie M. Remolona, Jr.,
[55:13] Chairman, AMLC,
[55:14] to Attorney Ronel U. Benaventura,
[55:16] Executive Director, AMLC,
[55:19] requiring him or her
[55:21] or his or her authorized representative
[55:23] to submit to the Clerk of the Impeachment Court,
[55:25] on or before 24 June, 2026,
[55:27] at 9 a.m.
[55:28] Original or certified true copies
[55:30] of the following.
[55:31] Number one,
[55:32] all reports of covert transactions
[55:34] and suspicious transactions
[55:35] filed by banks
[55:36] and all other financial institutions
[55:38] and covert persons
[55:38] required to submit
[55:39] covert transaction reports
[55:42] and suspicious transaction reports
[55:44] to the AMLC
[55:45] involving Sarah Duterte Carpio
[55:48] and or Manassas R. Carpio
[55:50] covering the period of 2006
[55:54] to 2025.
[55:56] Number two,
[55:57] any and all investigation reports
[55:59] or related reports
[56:00] or documents prepared
[56:01] by the AMLC
[56:02] involving the reported covert transactions
[56:04] or suspicious transactions
[56:06] and number three,
[56:08] electronic copies
[56:09] including Microsoft Excel files,
[56:11] database extracts,
[56:12] or machine-readable formats
[56:14] of AMLC,
[56:15] CTRs,
[56:16] and STRs
[56:17] for the period 2007
[56:19] to 2025
[56:20] involving Sarah Duterte Carpio
[56:22] and or Manassas R. Carpio.
[56:26] Respectfully submitted,
[56:27] Kansas City for Pasay City,
[56:29] June 18, 2026.
[56:31] Your Honor,
[56:31] may I comment?
[56:32] If Your Honor,
[56:33] please,
[56:33] before the defense
[56:35] makes a comment,
[56:36] just to obviate the proceedings
[56:38] and to facilitate
[56:39] the hearing today,
[56:41] if I may.
[56:42] The chair has not recognized
[56:43] anyone yet.
[56:46] May I be recognized,
[56:47] Your Honor?
[56:48] Also,
[56:49] schedule an oral argument
[56:51] on the respective positions
[56:53] of the parties.
[56:53] Yes,
[56:54] the chair will do that.
[56:55] Thank you,
[56:55] Your Honor.
[56:56] And this would not be on Monday,
[56:57] Your Honor.
[56:57] No,
[56:58] that will not be on Monday.
[56:59] Thank you,
[57:00] Your Honor.
[57:00] If Your Honor,
[57:00] please.
[57:01] Counsel for Prosecutor?
[57:02] Yes.
[57:03] May I be allowed
[57:03] to make a counter-manifestation,
[57:05] just a brief one
[57:06] with respect
[57:07] to the statement
[57:08] of the defense counsel
[57:10] regarding the application
[57:11] of the case
[57:12] of Duterte
[57:13] versus House of Representatives.
[57:15] The gentleman
[57:15] may proceed briefly.
[57:18] Your Honor,
[57:19] the decision
[57:19] and the resolution
[57:20] of the honor
[57:21] of the Supreme Court
[57:22] in that case
[57:22] did not say
[57:24] that any preterm evidence
[57:26] is inadmissible.
[57:28] There is no statement
[57:29] like that at all
[57:30] in the entire decision
[57:32] and the resolution.
[57:34] What the Supreme Court said,
[57:35] and I quote,
[57:35] was very simple.
[57:37] The basis of any charge
[57:38] must be for impeachable acts
[57:40] or omissions
[57:41] committed in relation
[57:42] to their office
[57:43] and during the current term
[57:45] of the impeachable officer.
[57:47] All of the articles
[57:48] in this particular case
[57:50] pertain to impeachable acts
[57:52] committed by the vice president
[57:54] during her term
[57:55] as an impeachable officer,
[57:57] including unexplained wealth.
[58:00] If I may just be allowed
[58:01] one minute, Your Honor,
[58:02] to explain that.
[58:04] One minute.
[58:05] Unexplained wealth,
[58:07] Your Honor,
[58:08] that is amassed
[58:09] prior to the term
[58:12] of a vice president
[58:13] is relevant and material
[58:14] to her being an impeachable officer
[58:18] because wealth
[58:19] of the magnitude
[58:20] of millions or billions
[58:22] of people who are not able to do it.
[58:24] It's very clear that when a local government
[58:31] official, for example,
[58:33] who later becomes a national official
[58:35] amasses hundreds of millions
[58:38] if not billions of pesos,
[58:40] then that benefit continues today.
[58:43] Second,
[58:45] if Your Honor,
[58:46] please,
[58:46] integrity,
[58:47] it's very clear that integrity
[58:56] is a continuing requirement
[58:58] of fitness for office.
[58:59] Thank you, Your Honor.
[59:03] Julie noted and entered into the records.
[59:06] May I respond?
[59:07] Just very briefly, Your Honor.
[59:09] I won't take much time
[59:11] of the impeachment.
[59:12] As a rejoinder
[59:12] to the statement
[59:13] and manifestation
[59:14] of Representative Jovna,
[59:16] briefly.
[59:17] Thank you, Your Honor.
[59:18] I think the good counsel
[59:20] has already stated
[59:21] precisely the reason
[59:23] for our position.
[59:25] We maintain our belief
[59:27] that the Duterte versus H.O.R. ruling
[59:31] precludes any of this
[59:34] trawling incursion,
[59:36] again,
[59:36] on private records
[59:39] of so many individuals
[59:40] and so many entities
[59:42] when nothing in the articles
[59:43] of impeachment
[59:44] point to any specific allegations
[59:47] as to the relevancy
[59:48] of all these documents,
[59:50] Your Honor.
[59:50] But nonetheless,
[59:51] we will include
[59:52] all our position
[59:53] and as well as
[59:55] our objections
[59:56] on the requests made today
[59:58] with respect
[59:58] to these documents
[1:00:00] and what it would seem
[1:00:02] to the defense
[1:00:03] would be another
[1:00:05] 2.0 version
[1:00:09] of a fishing expedition.
[1:00:12] May I also,
[1:00:13] Your Honor,
[1:00:16] just to clarify also
[1:00:18] the period given to us
[1:00:19] to comment on the request
[1:00:22] for a subpoena,
[1:00:23] may we ask that
[1:00:25] the five-day period
[1:00:26] run from our receipt
[1:00:27] of the copies
[1:00:30] of the documents,
[1:00:31] Your Honor.
[1:00:31] We will make sure
[1:00:32] that the council
[1:00:33] for respondent
[1:00:34] will get that today.
[1:00:36] Thank you, Your Honor.
[1:00:39] The comments
[1:00:39] of both councils
[1:00:40] of the parties
[1:00:41] are duly noted
[1:00:42] and entered in the records.
[1:00:43] Chair would like to apologize
[1:00:44] to Senator Cayetano
[1:00:45] who has been waiting
[1:00:45] for quite some time.
[1:00:47] Thank you for your patience
[1:00:48] and indulgence.
[1:00:49] Senator Cayetano is recognized.
[1:00:50] What is your pleasure, sir?
[1:00:51] Thank you, presiding
[1:00:51] Senator Judge.
[1:00:56] Since we already stated
[1:01:00] as a court
[1:01:00] that we will take
[1:01:03] literally
[1:01:04] section 3
[1:01:07] sub-paragraph 6
[1:01:09] of article 11
[1:01:10] of the 1987 Constitution
[1:01:12] that no person
[1:01:13] shall be convicted
[1:01:14] without the concurrence
[1:01:16] of two-thirds
[1:01:16] of all members
[1:01:17] of the Senate,
[1:01:18] may I ask the members
[1:01:20] of this court
[1:01:21] through the presiding justice
[1:01:22] to consider,
[1:01:24] not today,
[1:01:25] I have a proposal,
[1:01:27] but not today,
[1:01:27] but to consider
[1:01:28] communication
[1:01:30] with the Sandigan Bayan
[1:01:31] for the attendance
[1:01:33] of Senator Dante Marcoleta
[1:01:35] and Senator Jingoy Estrada,
[1:01:37] considering that
[1:01:39] the presiding officer
[1:01:40] may correct me
[1:01:41] if I'm wrong,
[1:01:41] but if we get
[1:01:43] to section 21
[1:01:45] as discussed
[1:01:47] a while ago
[1:01:48] by the defense,
[1:01:49] the prosecution
[1:01:50] and defense,
[1:01:52] and we do not know
[1:01:53] what will happen.
[1:01:54] Their case may be dismissed.
[1:01:55] They can be out
[1:01:56] on bail.
[1:01:58] So we want them
[1:01:59] to be able
[1:02:00] to participate
[1:02:01] and observe
[1:02:02] the witnesses
[1:02:03] as senator judges
[1:02:06] here.
[1:02:07] I do know
[1:02:08] that
[1:02:09] Senator Jingoy
[1:02:11] is under suspension,
[1:02:12] but there's an argument
[1:02:14] to be made
[1:02:15] that the impeachment
[1:02:18] court is originaries.
[1:02:20] In ordinary committee hearings,
[1:02:22] we do coordinate
[1:02:23] with courts
[1:02:24] to ask that
[1:02:26] persons under their custody
[1:02:28] be delivered
[1:02:30] to the Senate
[1:02:31] or the House
[1:02:32] of Representatives
[1:02:33] under certain conditions.
[1:02:36] So I'd like
[1:02:37] to formally ask,
[1:02:38] Mr. President,
[1:02:39] that this court
[1:02:39] consider that.
[1:02:42] I will submit
[1:02:42] whether you'd rather
[1:02:43] have a caucus
[1:02:44] or an in-camera
[1:02:46] discussion
[1:02:47] or if you want
[1:02:49] us all to submit
[1:02:50] our legal opinion.
[1:02:51] I wouldn't also mind
[1:02:52] the prosecution
[1:02:53] and defense weighing in,
[1:02:56] but considering
[1:02:56] that if they do not attend
[1:02:58] and they are here,
[1:03:02] sorry, Mr. President,
[1:03:03] considering that
[1:03:03] if they do not attend
[1:03:06] at all
[1:03:06] and cannot vote,
[1:03:08] their vote
[1:03:08] will be equal
[1:03:09] to a acquittal.
[1:03:11] And as we said
[1:03:12] from the start,
[1:03:13] we want a fair
[1:03:14] and we want justice,
[1:03:18] we want a fair
[1:03:18] impeachment trial,
[1:03:21] sinabi ng prosecution
[1:03:22] na sana tignan yung
[1:03:24] ebidensya,
[1:03:24] pakinggan,
[1:03:25] mga witnesses.
[1:03:27] So kahit gawin to
[1:03:28] ni Senator Marcoleta
[1:03:29] at kahit gawin to
[1:03:30] ni Senator Jinggoy,
[1:03:32] and of course,
[1:03:33] this is my personal opinion
[1:03:34] that may politika
[1:03:35] sa pagpapakulong sa kanila,
[1:03:37] that's my political,
[1:03:38] that's my personal view,
[1:03:40] allowing them
[1:03:42] to attend here
[1:03:43] might add
[1:03:44] to the integrity
[1:03:45] of the proceeding
[1:03:47] and actually
[1:03:48] make things easier
[1:03:49] when the time comes
[1:03:50] to render a verdict.
[1:03:52] So may I
[1:03:52] submit that
[1:03:54] to the court
[1:03:55] and to our colleagues
[1:03:56] for discussion
[1:03:57] at the proper time,
[1:03:58] Sir President.
[1:03:58] The chair notes
[1:03:59] the comments
[1:04:00] and requests
[1:04:00] of Senator Judge Cayetano
[1:04:02] and will consult
[1:04:04] the Senator Judges
[1:04:05] regarding this matter
[1:04:06] and shall
[1:04:08] coordinate
[1:04:10] with this office
[1:04:11] with respect
[1:04:12] to his requests
[1:04:13] pertaining
[1:04:14] to Senators
[1:04:15] Jinggoy Estrada
[1:04:16] and Senator Marcoleta,
[1:04:18] including whether
[1:04:19] or not we will
[1:04:20] enlist the comment
[1:04:21] and position
[1:04:22] of the parties
[1:04:24] to this case.
[1:04:25] So,
[1:04:25] Senator Tulfo,
[1:04:31] what is the pleasure
[1:04:32] of Senator Judge Tulfo?
[1:04:35] Rafi?
[1:04:40] Mr. President,
[1:04:40] officers,
[1:04:41] as far as I'm concerned,
[1:04:42] I would allow
[1:04:43] siguro magmonitor
[1:04:44] yung mga
[1:04:45] si Senator Jinggoy,
[1:04:48] Senator Marcoleta.
[1:04:50] It will be allowed
[1:04:51] kahit man lang
[1:04:52] yung sa TV monitor.
[1:04:55] Para sa akin,
[1:04:56] I do agree
[1:04:57] with what
[1:04:58] Senator Alan Pite
[1:04:59] Cayetano was suggesting.
[1:05:00] Thank you.
[1:05:01] Mr. President,
[1:05:01] The point of Senator
[1:05:03] Raffi,
[1:05:03] Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo
[1:05:05] is well taken
[1:05:06] by the chair.
[1:05:08] Any others?
[1:05:13] If there are none,
[1:05:15] the presiding officer
[1:05:15] would now like
[1:05:16] to deal with
[1:05:17] an administrative matter
[1:05:18] before we adjourn
[1:05:19] for this afternoon.
[1:05:21] On the matter
[1:05:21] of providing
[1:05:22] public access
[1:05:23] to case records,
[1:05:25] yes,
[1:05:26] Senator Judge Marcos,
[1:05:27] what is your pleasure?
[1:05:29] Yes,
[1:05:29] deciding officer,
[1:05:31] may I request
[1:05:32] an update?
[1:05:33] As I recall,
[1:05:34] during the pretrial conference,
[1:05:36] there was disagreement
[1:05:37] on how to go
[1:05:38] about the markings
[1:05:39] on the various documents
[1:05:40] and among the thousands
[1:05:41] of pages
[1:05:42] that we have received
[1:05:43] in evidence
[1:05:45] for the trial,
[1:05:46] it apparently
[1:05:47] was resolved
[1:05:48] that the councils
[1:05:49] would place
[1:05:50] their initials
[1:05:51] on the evidence.
[1:05:52] Is that correct?
[1:05:53] Is that still
[1:05:53] what stands today?
[1:05:56] And each party
[1:05:56] would take
[1:05:57] their respective
[1:05:58] evidence or files
[1:05:59] and present the same
[1:06:00] during the trial
[1:06:01] to guarantee
[1:06:02] that the same evidence
[1:06:03] would be presented.
[1:06:04] Is that correct?
[1:06:04] That is correct
[1:06:05] with the exception
[1:06:06] of some,
[1:06:07] I think,
[1:06:07] documents
[1:06:08] where the original
[1:06:10] was not presented
[1:06:11] which is being corrected,
[1:06:12] I think,
[1:06:12] by the parties
[1:06:13] as we speak.
[1:06:14] Are we,
[1:06:15] in fact,
[1:06:16] in receipt
[1:06:16] as judges
[1:06:17] of all these
[1:06:18] thousands of pages?
[1:06:19] Dahil na ako,
[1:06:21] simple lang hinahanap ko
[1:06:22] yung affidavit
[1:06:25] of investigation,
[1:06:26] yung dalawang NBI
[1:06:27] na unang testigo
[1:06:28] na sana haharap ngayon,
[1:06:30] eh,
[1:06:31] nakita ko
[1:06:32] sa libu-libong pahina
[1:06:33] na sinabmit,
[1:06:34] mali-mali
[1:06:35] ang pagka-annex
[1:06:36] ng AOI.
[1:06:37] Hindi ko talaga mahanap.
[1:06:39] Tapos,
[1:06:40] ang sabi doon,
[1:06:41] Annex G.
[1:06:42] Pero nung kinalkal ko
[1:06:43] yung Annex G,
[1:06:45] hindi naman affidavit yun
[1:06:46] kundi disbursement voucher
[1:06:48] or something like that.
[1:06:49] Kaya,
[1:06:50] hindi ko alam
[1:06:51] kung nag-provide ba talaga
[1:06:53] ang clerk
[1:06:54] ng Senate
[1:06:55] ng records
[1:06:55] as marked
[1:06:56] during pre-trial
[1:06:57] at kung pinal na talaga
[1:06:59] ito
[1:06:59] at pag-aaralan natin.
[1:07:01] At this point in time,
[1:07:03] Your Honor,
[1:07:03] documentary evidence
[1:07:05] as of yet
[1:07:06] has not been formally offered
[1:07:08] and therefore
[1:07:08] has not been turned over
[1:07:09] to the court.
[1:07:10] Neither has it
[1:07:11] as of yet
[1:07:11] been identified
[1:07:12] by a witness
[1:07:14] to authenticate the same
[1:07:16] and to be allowed
[1:07:17] admission
[1:07:18] into the records
[1:07:19] of this court.
[1:07:20] That time will come
[1:07:21] once the prosecution
[1:07:22] presents their witness
[1:07:23] and identifies
[1:07:24] the piece of evidence,
[1:07:26] that will be the proper time
[1:07:28] perhaps
[1:07:28] that the good senator judge
[1:07:30] can ask for a copy
[1:07:32] because the lady
[1:07:33] might want to ask questions
[1:07:34] of the witness
[1:07:35] so that time come
[1:07:38] for the witness
[1:07:39] to testify
[1:07:40] as to the document
[1:07:41] marked previously
[1:07:43] erroneously
[1:07:44] or rightfully
[1:07:45] by either party.
[1:07:46] Yes, precisely.
[1:07:47] Thank you very much,
[1:07:48] presiding officer.
[1:07:49] We wish to prepare
[1:07:50] for the three
[1:07:51] first witnesses
[1:07:52] and were unable
[1:07:53] to access
[1:07:54] any of their affidavits
[1:07:55] or other documents.
[1:07:56] Thank you.
[1:07:58] Julie noted
[1:07:59] and under the records
[1:07:59] what is the pleasure
[1:08:00] of Senator Judge Padilla?
[1:08:05] Ginong
[1:08:06] tagapamahalang hukom,
[1:08:09] gusto ko lamang pong
[1:08:10] sundan yung sinabi
[1:08:12] ni Senator Judge
[1:08:14] Alan Peter Caitano
[1:08:15] at magpasalamat po
[1:08:17] kay Senator Judge
[1:08:18] Rafi Tulfo.
[1:08:20] Gusto ko lamang pong linawin
[1:08:21] na ang hinihingi po namin
[1:08:23] kung hindi man
[1:08:23] makapag-participate
[1:08:25] dahil sinasabi nga po
[1:08:26] ay ipinagbabawal silang
[1:08:27] makapag-participate
[1:08:29] at bumoto
[1:08:30] si Senator
[1:08:31] Jingo Estrada
[1:08:32] at Senator
[1:08:33] Judge Marculeta
[1:08:35] ang hinihingi po namin
[1:08:36] ay makapunta po sila dito
[1:08:38] bilang observer
[1:08:39] hindi lang po
[1:08:41] basta monitor.
[1:08:42] Yun lamang po.
[1:08:43] Maraming salamat.
[1:08:44] Noted at the proper time
[1:08:45] we shall discuss
[1:08:46] this matter
[1:08:47] and settle it
[1:08:48] as a court
[1:08:49] or in caucus.
[1:08:53] There being no other
[1:08:54] Senator Judge
[1:08:54] who wishes to make
[1:08:55] a manifestation,
[1:08:56] comment,
[1:08:57] and or motion,
[1:08:58] Chair would now like
[1:08:58] to dispose of
[1:08:59] an administrative matter
[1:09:00] consistent with
[1:09:04] Article 2,
[1:09:05] Section 28
[1:09:05] of the Constitution
[1:09:06] on the policy
[1:09:07] of public disclosure
[1:09:08] in matters involving
[1:09:09] public interest
[1:09:10] and to give life
[1:09:10] to the Directive
[1:09:11] under the rules
[1:09:12] to open the impeachment
[1:09:14] proceedings to the public.
[1:09:15] The court hereby directs
[1:09:17] the clerk of court
[1:09:17] to create the necessary
[1:09:19] internet web pages
[1:09:20] to allow the electronic
[1:09:21] records of impeachment
[1:09:22] to be made accessible
[1:09:24] to the public
[1:09:25] through the Senate website
[1:09:26] whereby all pleadings,
[1:09:28] memoranda,
[1:09:29] motions filed by the party
[1:09:32] shall be uploaded
[1:09:33] including the journal
[1:09:35] of the proceedings
[1:09:36] after it shall have been
[1:09:38] approved by the impeachment
[1:09:39] court.
[1:09:40] Yun lang po siguro
[1:09:41] yung madedelay ng konti
[1:09:42] dahil kailangan
[1:09:43] aprobahan muna
[1:09:44] ng impeachment court
[1:09:45] yung journal
[1:09:46] bago po namin
[1:09:47] ma-upload
[1:09:48] sa website.
[1:09:49] Yes, what is the pleasure
[1:09:50] of Senator Judge
[1:09:51] Bam Aquino?
[1:09:52] Yes, Mr. President,
[1:09:53] on this note,
[1:09:54] firstly, we'd like to
[1:09:56] second and congratulate
[1:09:58] this move
[1:09:59] of the impeachment
[1:10:00] court to make
[1:10:00] all of the evidence
[1:10:01] available to the public.
[1:10:03] May we know
[1:10:03] in how many days
[1:10:05] will the clerk of court
[1:10:06] make this evidence
[1:10:08] available to the public,
[1:10:10] Mr. President?
[1:10:14] They've started
[1:10:15] but they have not
[1:10:15] completed it yet.
[1:10:17] As Senator Judge
[1:10:18] Marco said,
[1:10:19] the documents
[1:10:20] are voluminous.
[1:10:22] I think
[1:10:23] it covers
[1:10:24] until
[1:10:25] 9Q,
[1:10:27] if I'm not mistaken,
[1:10:29] initially
[1:10:29] when it was marked,
[1:10:32] about more than
[1:10:32] 10,000 documents.
[1:10:34] Mr. President,
[1:10:34] of course,
[1:10:35] in the same way
[1:10:37] if this is
[1:10:38] made available
[1:10:39] to the public
[1:10:39] six months from now
[1:10:41] or one year from now,
[1:10:42] that defeats the purpose
[1:10:43] of having this made public.
[1:10:45] No, no, no.
[1:10:45] That will not happen.
[1:10:46] Yes.
[1:10:46] May we get a commitment
[1:10:47] from the clerk of court
[1:10:48] as to the delay
[1:10:50] by which presented evidence
[1:10:52] is made public,
[1:10:53] Mr. President?
[1:10:57] No, no.
[1:10:58] Let me clarify,
[1:11:13] Your Honor.
[1:11:16] I believe
[1:11:17] the articles of impeachment
[1:11:19] as well as its annexes
[1:11:20] have been uploaded.
[1:11:22] The answer
[1:11:23] as well as its annexes
[1:11:24] have been uploaded
[1:11:25] and most of the exhibits
[1:11:27] that were marked,
[1:11:28] not all,
[1:11:31] are annexes
[1:11:32] of either
[1:11:32] the impeachment complaint
[1:11:34] and or the answer.
[1:11:37] Can the chair
[1:11:37] give you an update
[1:11:38] before the week is over
[1:11:40] as to a realistic
[1:11:41] timetable
[1:11:42] to upload
[1:11:44] in real time already?
[1:11:45] Again,
[1:11:46] except for the journal
[1:11:47] which we need to approve.
[1:11:48] So,
[1:11:49] we cannot upload
[1:11:50] the Wednesday
[1:11:50] transcript
[1:11:51] or journal
[1:11:52] until we meet again
[1:11:54] on Monday
[1:11:55] and approve
[1:11:55] the journal of Wednesday.
[1:11:56] so that would be
[1:11:58] the only delay
[1:11:59] if at all
[1:12:00] in uploading it.
[1:12:01] That should be
[1:12:01] the only delay.
[1:12:02] So,
[1:12:02] if I take it
[1:12:03] correctly,
[1:12:04] Mr. President,
[1:12:05] the clerk of court
[1:12:06] will endeavor
[1:12:06] to upload
[1:12:08] all of the
[1:12:08] presented evidence
[1:12:09] in real time
[1:12:10] at the soonest
[1:12:11] possible time
[1:12:12] except for the journal
[1:12:13] which needs
[1:12:14] approval of the body.
[1:12:15] That is correct,
[1:12:16] Your Honor.
[1:12:16] Thank you,
[1:12:17] Mr. President.
[1:12:18] Senator Judge
[1:12:19] Cayetano,
[1:12:20] Alan?
[1:12:23] Presiding
[1:12:24] Senator Judge,
[1:12:26] just a clarification.
[1:12:27] So,
[1:12:28] no problem
[1:12:28] with complete
[1:12:29] transparency
[1:12:30] with any
[1:12:31] public records
[1:12:33] but when
[1:12:33] we talk
[1:12:33] about
[1:12:34] evidence
[1:12:34] precisely
[1:12:38] that's why
[1:12:39] we want
[1:12:39] a fair trial
[1:12:40] due process.
[1:12:42] There's a process
[1:12:43] wherein
[1:12:43] the prosecution
[1:12:45] shall present
[1:12:45] evidence
[1:12:46] then
[1:12:47] they will
[1:12:48] offer it
[1:12:49] and then
[1:12:50] if there's
[1:12:51] a question
[1:12:51] as to
[1:12:52] the
[1:12:52] relevance
[1:12:53] or
[1:12:54] if it
[1:12:54] is prohibited
[1:12:55] for example
[1:12:56] if
[1:12:57] a
[1:12:57] evidence
[1:12:58] presented
[1:12:59] is a
[1:13:00] fruit
[1:13:00] of the
[1:13:00] poisonous
[1:13:01] tree
[1:13:01] will
[1:13:03] we upload
[1:13:03] that
[1:13:03] we haven't
[1:13:05] decided
[1:13:05] yet
[1:13:06] here
[1:13:07] whether
[1:13:08] we will
[1:13:08] accept
[1:13:08] it
[1:13:09] as
[1:13:09] evidence
[1:13:09] or
[1:13:10] not.
[1:13:12] So,
[1:13:12] let me
[1:13:12] tell you
[1:13:13] first
[1:13:13] which
[1:13:13] ones
[1:13:14] personally
[1:13:14] I don't
[1:13:15] have a
[1:13:15] problem
[1:13:15] with.
[1:13:16] Don't
[1:13:16] have a
[1:13:17] problem
[1:13:17] with
[1:13:17] the
[1:13:18] public
[1:13:19] records
[1:13:20] in general
[1:13:20] being
[1:13:21] completely
[1:13:22] transparent.
[1:13:23] I have
[1:13:23] no problem
[1:13:23] with
[1:13:24] senator
[1:13:24] judges
[1:13:25] given
[1:13:26] time
[1:13:26] to
[1:13:27] review
[1:13:27] everything
[1:13:28] and
[1:13:29] I
[1:13:29] assume
[1:13:30] we're
[1:13:30] all
[1:13:30] trained
[1:13:31] to
[1:13:33] consider
[1:13:33] only
[1:13:34] the
[1:13:34] evidence
[1:13:34] that
[1:13:35] is
[1:13:35] later
[1:13:35] on
[1:13:36] admitted
[1:13:37] offered
[1:13:37] and
[1:13:38] admitted
[1:13:38] so
[1:13:39] my
[1:13:39] problem
[1:13:40] is
[1:13:40] that
[1:13:41] for
[1:13:42] example
[1:13:43] if
[1:13:43] someone
[1:13:43] offers
[1:13:44] now
[1:13:44] between
[1:13:45] now
[1:13:45] and
[1:13:46] the
[1:13:46] trial
[1:13:46] wiretapped
[1:13:48] recordings
[1:13:50] do we
[1:13:51] upload
[1:13:51] that
[1:13:52] when
[1:13:53] we have
[1:13:53] not
[1:13:54] made
[1:13:54] a
[1:13:54] ruling
[1:13:54] yet
[1:13:55] on
[1:13:55] that
[1:13:55] so
[1:13:55] I
[1:13:55] just
[1:13:55] want
[1:13:55] to
[1:13:56] be
[1:13:56] clarified
[1:13:56] on
[1:13:56] that
[1:13:56] the
[1:13:57] chair
[1:13:57] will
[1:13:57] clarify
[1:13:58] as
[1:13:58] the
[1:13:58] chair
[1:13:58] said
[1:13:59] earlier
[1:13:59] only
[1:14:00] the
[1:14:00] pleadings
[1:14:01] motions
[1:14:01] and
[1:14:02] memoranda
[1:14:02] filed
[1:14:03] by
[1:14:03] the
[1:14:03] parties
[1:14:04] and
[1:14:04] in
[1:14:04] so
[1:14:05] far
[1:14:05] as
[1:14:05] the
[1:14:05] exhibits
[1:14:06] marked
[1:14:07] are
[1:14:07] concerned
[1:14:07] only
[1:14:08] those
[1:14:08] attached
[1:14:09] as
[1:14:09] annexes
[1:14:09] to
[1:14:10] either
[1:14:10] the
[1:14:10] articles
[1:14:10] of
[1:14:10] impeachment
[1:14:11] and
[1:14:12] or
[1:14:12] the
[1:14:12] answer
[1:14:12] to
[1:14:13] the
[1:14:13] impeachment
[1:14:13] complaint
[1:14:14] in
[1:14:14] so
[1:14:14] far
[1:14:15] as
[1:14:15] documentary
[1:14:16] evidence
[1:14:17] is
[1:14:17] concerned
[1:14:18] it
[1:14:18] will
[1:14:19] only
[1:14:19] be
[1:14:19] admitted
[1:14:20] and
[1:14:20] if
[1:14:21] at
[1:14:21] all
[1:14:21] admitted
[1:14:22] by
[1:14:22] the
[1:14:22] court
[1:14:22] and
[1:14:22] published
[1:14:23] once
[1:14:24] formal
[1:14:24] offer
[1:14:24] has
[1:14:25] been
[1:14:25] made
[1:14:26] until
[1:14:26] such
[1:14:27] time
[1:14:27] we
[1:14:28] will
[1:14:28] not
[1:14:28] publish
[1:14:29] any
[1:14:29] documentary
[1:14:30] evidence
[1:14:31] even
[1:14:31] after
[1:14:32] being
[1:14:32] identified
[1:14:33] by a
[1:14:33] witness
[1:14:34] because
[1:14:34] it
[1:14:34] is
[1:14:34] the
[1:14:34] formal
[1:14:35] offer
[1:14:35] that
[1:14:35] will
[1:14:35] determine
[1:14:36] its
[1:14:37] admission
[1:14:37] by
[1:14:37] the
[1:14:37] court
[1:14:38] after
[1:14:38] the
[1:14:39] party
[1:14:39] rests
[1:14:40] same
[1:14:40] thing
[1:14:42] with
[1:14:42] if
[1:14:42] we
[1:14:42] do
[1:14:43] issue
[1:14:43] a
[1:14:44] subpoena
[1:14:45] the
[1:14:48] subject
[1:14:49] matter
[1:14:49] of the
[1:14:49] subpoena
[1:14:50] will not
[1:14:50] be
[1:14:50] published
[1:14:51] but
[1:14:51] the
[1:14:51] motion
[1:14:51] for
[1:14:51] the
[1:14:52] issuance
[1:14:52] of a
[1:14:52] subpoena
[1:14:53] thank
[1:14:53] you
[1:14:53] thank
[1:14:54] you
[1:14:54] for
[1:14:54] that
[1:14:54] clarification
[1:14:55] thank
[1:14:56] you
[1:14:56] senator
[1:14:58] judge
[1:14:59] erwin
[1:15:00] tulfa
[1:15:00] is
[1:15:00] recognized
[1:15:01] what
[1:15:02] is
[1:15:02] your
[1:15:02] pleasure
[1:15:02] sir
[1:15:02] thank
[1:15:05] you
[1:15:05] mr
[1:15:05] president
[1:15:06] thank
[1:15:06] you
[1:15:06] uh
[1:15:07] mr
[1:15:07] presiding
[1:15:08] officer
[1:15:08] just
[1:15:09] want
[1:15:09] to
[1:15:09] be
[1:15:09] clarified
[1:15:10] uh
[1:15:10] i need
[1:15:11] a
[1:15:11] clarification
[1:15:12] uh
[1:15:12] mr
[1:15:13] presiding
[1:15:13] officer
[1:15:13] with
[1:15:14] regards
[1:15:14] to
[1:15:14] this
[1:15:15] uh
[1:15:15] anti-money
[1:15:16] laundering
[1:15:16] council
[1:15:17] documents
[1:15:17] or
[1:15:18] pieces
[1:15:18] of
[1:15:19] evidence
[1:15:19] that
[1:15:19] will
[1:15:19] be
[1:15:19] submitted
[1:15:20] here
[1:15:20] uh
[1:15:21] will
[1:15:22] it
[1:15:22] be
[1:15:22] okay
[1:15:22] if
[1:15:23] we
[1:15:23] tackle
[1:15:24] this
[1:15:24] in
[1:15:24] public
[1:15:25] or
[1:15:25] shall
[1:15:25] we
[1:15:26] tackle
[1:15:26] evidence
[1:15:27] from
[1:15:27] the
[1:15:27] um
[1:15:28] lock
[1:15:30] i believe
[1:15:31] uh
[1:15:32] the
[1:15:32] uh
[1:15:33] this
[1:15:33] is
[1:15:34] under
[1:15:34] the
[1:15:34] bank
[1:15:35] secrecy
[1:15:35] law
[1:15:36] or
[1:15:36] we
[1:15:36] can
[1:15:37] tackle
[1:15:37] it
[1:15:37] because
[1:15:38] this
[1:15:38] is
[1:15:38] an
[1:15:38] impeachment
[1:15:39] court
[1:15:39] uh
[1:15:40] mr
[1:15:40] presiding
[1:15:41] officer
[1:15:41] what
[1:15:42] we
[1:15:42] will
[1:15:42] debate
[1:15:42] upon
[1:15:43] if
[1:15:43] at
[1:15:43] all
[1:15:44] on
[1:15:44] the
[1:15:44] scheduled
[1:15:45] date
[1:15:45] to be
[1:15:45] set
[1:15:46] by
[1:15:46] the
[1:15:46] chair
[1:15:46] is
[1:15:47] um
[1:15:48] a
[1:15:48] debate
[1:15:49] on
[1:15:49] the
[1:15:49] on
[1:15:50] whether
[1:15:50] or
[1:15:50] not
[1:15:50] to
[1:15:50] issue
[1:15:51] the
[1:15:51] sub
[1:15:51] pina
[1:15:52] do
[1:15:53] cestegum
[1:15:53] ad
[1:15:54] testificandum
[1:15:54] in relation
[1:15:55] to
[1:15:55] AMLC
[1:15:56] records
[1:15:57] not
[1:15:57] the
[1:15:58] actual
[1:15:58] records
[1:15:59] yet
[1:15:59] once
[1:16:01] it
[1:16:01] is
[1:16:01] granted
[1:16:02] by
[1:16:03] the
[1:16:03] court
[1:16:03] and
[1:16:04] is
[1:16:04] issued
[1:16:04] it
[1:16:05] will
[1:16:05] have
[1:16:06] to
[1:16:06] be
[1:16:06] presented
[1:16:07] by
[1:16:07] the
[1:16:07] parties
[1:16:08] we
[1:16:09] cannot
[1:16:09] talk
[1:16:10] tackle
[1:16:10] and
[1:16:10] discuss
[1:16:11] it
[1:16:11] in
[1:16:11] executive
[1:16:12] session
[1:16:12] because
[1:16:12] anything
[1:16:13] and
[1:16:14] everything
[1:16:14] discussed
[1:16:14] in
[1:16:15] executive
[1:16:15] session
[1:16:15] cannot
[1:16:16] be
[1:16:17] revealed
[1:16:17] into
[1:16:18] the
[1:16:18] public
[1:16:18] and
[1:16:18] used
[1:16:19] by
[1:16:19] this
[1:16:19] court
[1:16:20] secondly
[1:16:22] it
[1:16:22] can
[1:16:22] only
[1:16:23] be
[1:16:23] revealed
[1:16:24] by
[1:16:25] a
[1:16:26] unanimous
[1:16:26] vote
[1:16:27] consent
[1:16:27] by
[1:16:27] all
[1:16:28] the
[1:16:28] senator
[1:16:28] judges
[1:16:29] which
[1:16:29] effectively
[1:16:30] hanties
[1:16:31] that
[1:16:32] piece
[1:16:33] of
[1:16:33] evidence
[1:16:33] if we
[1:16:34] discuss
[1:16:34] and talk
[1:16:35] about
[1:16:35] it
[1:16:35] only
[1:16:36] in
[1:16:36] executive
[1:16:37] session
[1:16:37] whether
[1:16:38] or not
[1:16:39] it is
[1:16:39] to be
[1:16:39] made
[1:16:39] public
[1:16:40] whether
[1:16:40] or not
[1:16:41] it
[1:16:41] can
[1:16:42] be
[1:16:42] legally
[1:16:42] obtained
[1:16:43] will be
[1:16:43] decided
[1:16:44] by
[1:16:44] this
[1:16:44] court
[1:16:44] after
[1:16:45] hearing
[1:16:45] the
[1:16:45] oral
[1:16:45] arguments
[1:16:46] of
[1:16:46] the
[1:16:46] parties
[1:16:47] thank
[1:16:47] you
[1:16:48] for
[1:16:48] that
[1:16:48] clarification
[1:16:49] Mr.
[1:16:49] presiding
[1:16:49] officer
[1:16:49] what
[1:16:52] is
[1:16:52] the
[1:16:52] pleasure
[1:16:52] of
[1:16:53] Senator
[1:16:53] Judge
[1:16:53] Villanueva
[1:16:54] yes
[1:16:55] Mr.
[1:16:55] President
[1:16:56] considering
[1:16:57] that
[1:16:59] tackling
[1:17:00] and
[1:17:00] asking
[1:17:00] of
[1:17:01] pieces
[1:17:03] of
[1:17:03] evidence
[1:17:04] I
[1:17:04] think
[1:17:04] there's
[1:17:05] a lot
[1:17:06] of
[1:17:06] questions
[1:17:07] with
[1:17:08] regard
[1:17:09] to
[1:17:09] the
[1:17:09] mahiwagang
[1:17:10] BIR
[1:17:11] box
[1:17:11] Mr.
[1:17:12] President
[1:17:12] clarification
[1:17:14] where is
[1:17:16] it now
[1:17:16] and
[1:17:16] when
[1:17:17] are we
[1:17:18] going
[1:17:19] to
[1:17:19] transfer
[1:17:22] it
[1:17:22] to
[1:17:22] the
[1:17:23] Bureau
[1:17:23] of
[1:17:23] Internal
[1:17:24] Revenue
[1:17:24] It is
[1:17:25] with
[1:17:25] the
[1:17:25] clerk
[1:17:25] of
[1:17:25] court
[1:17:26] in
[1:17:26] the
[1:17:26] office
[1:17:26] of
[1:17:26] the
[1:17:27] Secretary
[1:17:27] General
[1:17:28] as
[1:17:28] instructed
[1:17:29] by
[1:17:29] the
[1:17:29] chair
[1:17:30] it
[1:17:30] should
[1:17:31] be
[1:17:31] sent
[1:17:31] back
[1:17:32] to
[1:17:32] the
[1:17:32] BIR
[1:17:32] by
[1:17:33] tomorrow
[1:17:33] morning
[1:17:34] in
[1:17:35] the
[1:17:35] condition
[1:17:36] that
[1:17:36] it
[1:17:36] was
[1:17:36] received
[1:17:37] meaning
[1:17:37] sealed
[1:17:38] the
[1:17:38] same
[1:17:39] thank
[1:17:39] you
[1:17:40] sir
[1:17:40] president
[1:17:40] any
[1:17:43] other
[1:17:43] manifestations
[1:17:45] or motions
[1:17:45] on the
[1:17:46] part of
[1:17:47] the
[1:17:47] senator
[1:17:47] judges
[1:17:47] senator
[1:17:50] judge
[1:17:51] on
[1:17:51] de
[1:17:51] veros
[1:17:51] is
[1:17:51] recognized
[1:17:52] what
[1:17:52] is
[1:17:52] your
[1:17:52] pleasure
[1:17:53] ma'am
[1:17:54] salamat
[1:17:55] po
[1:17:55] mr.
[1:17:55] presiding
[1:17:56] officer
[1:17:56] just
[1:17:57] to
[1:17:57] make
[1:17:57] a
[1:17:57] brief
[1:17:58] statement
[1:17:59] in
[1:18:00] support
[1:18:01] of
[1:18:01] the
[1:18:01] ruling
[1:18:02] recently
[1:18:03] proclaimed
[1:18:03] by the
[1:18:04] presiding
[1:18:04] officer
[1:18:04] on
[1:18:05] executive
[1:18:06] sessions
[1:18:07] thank you
[1:18:08] and just
[1:18:12] to add
[1:18:12] a little
[1:18:13] bit
[1:18:13] of
[1:18:14] that
[1:18:14] presiding
[1:18:15] officer
[1:18:16] thank
[1:18:16] you
[1:18:16] the
[1:18:18] executive
[1:18:18] session
[1:18:18] is only
[1:18:19] for
[1:18:20] congress
[1:18:21] acting
[1:18:22] in its
[1:18:22] usual
[1:18:23] legislative
[1:18:24] functions
[1:18:24] and
[1:18:24] impeachment
[1:18:25] trials
[1:18:26] do not
[1:18:27] contemplate
[1:18:28] executive
[1:18:28] session
[1:18:29] so
[1:18:29] I
[1:18:30] join
[1:18:30] with
[1:18:31] the
[1:18:31] presiding
[1:18:31] officer
[1:18:32] in the
[1:18:32] call
[1:18:33] that
[1:18:33] he
[1:18:33] made
[1:18:33] which
[1:18:34] I
[1:18:34] believe
[1:18:34] is
[1:18:34] the
[1:18:34] default
[1:18:35] also
[1:18:36] of
[1:18:36] this
[1:18:36] impeachment
[1:18:37] trial
[1:18:37] court
[1:18:37] for
[1:18:38] transparency
[1:18:39] as a
[1:18:40] general
[1:18:41] rule
[1:18:41] and
[1:18:41] as
[1:18:41] a
[1:18:42] default
[1:18:42] salamat
[1:18:43] po
[1:18:43] Mr.
[1:18:43] presiding
[1:18:43] officer
[1:18:44] thank you
[1:18:45] senator
[1:18:45] judge
[1:18:45] and
[1:18:45] the
[1:18:45] before
[1:18:47] the
[1:18:47] court
[1:18:47] adjourns
[1:18:48] chair
[1:18:48] directs
[1:18:48] the
[1:18:48] clerk
[1:18:49] of
[1:18:49] court
[1:18:49] to
[1:18:49] kindly
[1:18:49] make
[1:18:50] sure
[1:18:50] that
[1:18:50] the
[1:18:50] subpoena
[1:18:51] for
[1:18:51] the
[1:18:51] two
[1:18:51] NBI
[1:18:52] agents
[1:18:53] will
[1:18:53] be
[1:18:53] issued
[1:18:53] this
[1:18:54] afternoon
[1:18:54] and
[1:18:54] duly
[1:18:54] received
[1:18:55] and
[1:18:56] entrust
[1:18:56] it
[1:18:57] to
[1:18:57] the
[1:18:57] council
[1:18:57] for
[1:18:57] prosecutors
[1:18:58] to
[1:18:58] make
[1:18:58] sure
[1:18:59] of
[1:19:00] the
[1:19:01] attendance
[1:19:01] of
[1:19:02] their
[1:19:02] two
[1:19:06] clerk
[1:19:06] of
[1:19:07] court
[1:19:07] to
[1:19:07] furnish
[1:19:07] right
[1:19:08] after
[1:19:09] we
[1:19:09] adjourn
[1:19:10] council
[1:19:10] for
[1:19:10] respondents
[1:19:11] with
[1:19:11] a
[1:19:11] copy
[1:19:11] of
[1:19:12] the
[1:19:13] request
[1:19:13] for
[1:19:13] the
[1:19:14] issuance
[1:19:14] of
[1:19:14] subpoena
[1:19:15] thus far
[1:19:16] submitted
[1:19:17] and filed
[1:19:17] with the
[1:19:19] office
[1:19:19] of the
[1:19:20] clerk
[1:19:20] of
[1:19:20] court
[1:19:20] so
[1:19:21] ordered
[1:19:21] there
[1:19:23] being
[1:19:23] no
[1:19:23] other
[1:19:23] business
[1:19:24] to
[1:19:24] discuss
[1:19:24] the
[1:19:26] trial
[1:19:26] is
[1:19:26] hereby
[1:19:27] adjourned
[1:19:27] until
[1:19:28] 2
[1:19:28] p.m.
[1:19:29] of
[1:19:29] Tuesday
[1:19:30] tomorrow
[1:19:30] July
[1:19:31] 7
[1:19:31] 20
[1:19:32] 26
[1:19:33] 2
[1:19:34] 5
[1:19:59] 7
[1:20:00] 6
[1:20:00] 7
[1:20:01] 8
[1:20:02] 8
[1:20:03] 7