Luistro's point of view: Why prosecution dropped 3 impeach articles vs Duterte — ANC

[0:00] Well, joining us on the program, Lead House Prosecutor, Congresswoman Jervil Luistro. [0:05] Congresswoman, good afternoon to you. Thanks for joining us today. Welcome to the program. [0:10] Good afternoon, Carmina, and good afternoon to all our viewers and followers. [0:15] All right. So, Congresswoman, there's lots to talk about. [0:17] I'm sure you're well aware of how the public has been reacting, [0:21] both for the prosecution and against the prosecution. [0:24] Same with the defense. [0:26] First of all, from the beginning of this trial, and even before it, even during the House Justice Committee [0:32] or all the committee hearings held at the House of Representatives, [0:37] both in the 19th Congress and in the 20th Congress, you were always appealing to the public. [0:43] You used the public as reason for the VP to answer the allegations against her. [0:52] You called on the VP several times to address all these allegations against her, [0:59] only to take that opportunity away from the VP yesterday, [1:04] basically saying you no longer need the explanation of the VP. [1:10] So tell us, how did you arrive at that decision, Congresswoman? [1:14] On the contrary, Carmina, we've been waiting for that opportunity to hear [1:20] the answer of the respondent vice president that was seen since the first impeachment back in 2024 [1:29] until the recent clarificatory hearing in the Justice Committee up to the trial, [1:39] which we are holding right now, where in the answer of the respondent vice president, [1:45] she did not squarely answer or explain the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment. [1:54] Now, with respect to the decision to withdraw three out of four articles of impeachment, [2:01] as I have manifested yesterday, we consider the interest of the public, [2:07] as the public has expressed already impatience, as shown by demonstrations in the Senate compound [2:16] relative to this impeachment, we considered as well the interest of the impeachment court, [2:24] considering the equally important other legislative functions, [2:30] that includes the much-anticipated budget hearing for 2027. [2:36] And while the defense may not acknowledge it, [2:41] we considered as well that the withdrawal of the three articles [2:45] operate to the benefit and advantage of the respondent herself. [2:51] Because right now, Carmina, there's only one article remaining, [2:57] which means that this is our last hope and chance [3:02] if ever the respondent will be convicted. [3:07] If we lose on this article, [3:10] it means that that is the end of the entire impeachment process. [3:15] Now, why even go there? [3:17] You have said it many times over, [3:19] you, Congressman Retoan, [3:21] all the other members of the prosecution panel, [3:24] that you have a strong case, [3:25] you're standing on solid ground, [3:27] you have an airtight case against the vice president. [3:32] So, when was it decided, [3:34] give us a backstory, [3:36] that you were going to drop the three out of the four articles of impeachment? [3:40] To give context, Carmina, [3:43] to the position of the prosecution, [3:47] we have considered the two past impeachment cases [3:52] of former President Estrada and Chief Justice Corona [3:57] as part of our several guidance [4:00] as we go along in this impeachment trial. [4:04] We've seen from the past impeachment, [4:07] nagkakaroon talaga ng withdrawal of articles, [4:10] and in fact, [4:12] we invoke this as president [4:14] to the action that was taken by the prosecution yesterday. [4:20] Yeah, Congressman, let me just cut you there. [4:21] Nagkakaroon talaga, it happens. [4:24] Even in regular courts, that happens. [4:27] But should it have happened here, [4:29] considering the public interest, [4:31] considering na hinimok niyo po [4:33] ang publiko na manood, [4:36] mag-engage, [4:37] sundan, [4:37] araw-araw, [4:39] pagkatapos, [4:39] kalaunan, [4:40] bibitaw pala kayo. [4:41] It is the same public interest, Carmina, [4:46] which was part of our consideration. [4:48] As I have said, [4:50] the issues incorporated in this article of impeachment [4:54] are the same issues as early as in 2024. [5:00] We acknowledge that the public have been waiting [5:03] for the conclusion of this long impeachment process. [5:07] And please understand [5:09] that by withdrawing the three articles of impeachment, [5:12] it doesn't mean [5:13] na nabaliwala yung three other articles. [5:17] And let me take advantage of this opportunity [5:20] to remind the viewing public, [5:23] hindi po nasayang itong tatlong articles na ito [5:27] because as a matter of fact, [5:29] may ongoing hearing [5:31] ang grave threat [5:32] sa Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. [5:36] Ito naman pong confidential fund and bribery [5:39] since 2025 [5:41] ay nakabindi na sa ombudsman. [5:44] In addition, Carmina, [5:46] we observe how the defense [5:48] conducted their cross-examination. [5:51] And as a matter of fact, [5:54] in several times, [5:55] mas mahaba pa yung kanilang cross [5:57] kesa sa direct examination [5:59] ng prosecution. [6:01] I think with this position [6:04] of the prosecution, [6:07] we will be assured [6:08] that there will be [6:09] no dilatory tactics [6:11] and that the public [6:13] will be able to see, [6:15] really, [6:16] the conclusion [6:16] of this impeachment process. [6:18] After all, [6:20] regardless of whether it is [6:21] one, two, three, and four, [6:24] all of them [6:25] are under the umbrella [6:27] of two major grounds [6:29] for impeachment. [6:31] That is [6:31] betrayal of public trust [6:33] and culpable violation [6:35] of the Constitution. [6:37] Likewise, [6:38] let us not forget, [6:40] this is [6:41] an exclusive prerogative [6:43] of the prosecution [6:44] to decide [6:45] what article to present, [6:48] what evidence to present. [6:50] In the same way, [6:50] na pagdating na ng turn [6:53] ng defense's presentation [6:54] of evidence, [6:55] it will be [6:56] their prerogative as well [6:57] to decide [6:58] on those matters, [7:00] Carmina. [7:00] All right. [7:01] I'm gonna get back [7:02] to that in a bit. [7:03] But first, [7:04] can you tell us who [7:05] among the members [7:07] of the House [7:08] Prosecution Panel, [7:09] together with the [7:09] private prosecutors, [7:11] who brought this up? [7:12] Who suggested? [7:15] Well, [7:15] what I can say is [7:16] it represents [7:17] the collective position [7:18] of the prosecution. [7:20] And like what I said earlier, [7:24] naging guidance namin [7:25] ang past impeachment processes. [7:28] So early on, [7:29] part na yan [7:30] ng discussions [7:30] ng prosecution [7:31] until we are able [7:33] to see [7:34] the feedback [7:35] of the public [7:36] on the presentation [7:37] of unexplained wealth. [7:40] Okay, hang on. [7:41] Hang on, hang on. [7:42] You said [7:42] part na siya. [7:44] So this decision [7:46] didn't happen overnight. [7:48] This was part of [7:50] the arsenal of strategies [7:52] coming from [7:54] the House Prosecution Panel. [7:56] Go ahead. [7:56] What I can say is [7:57] it is part of [7:59] our repeated [8:00] long discussions [8:01] ever since. [8:03] Siyempre, [8:04] nag-estrategize tayo, [8:05] Carmina, [8:06] and this is just [8:07] one of the several [8:09] legal strategies [8:10] of the prosecution. [8:11] so as not to [8:14] open the door [8:15] for further [8:16] dilatory tactics [8:17] that may happen [8:18] in the future. [8:20] All right. [8:22] It's very clear, [8:23] no? [8:24] Congresswoman, [8:24] ganyan naman talaga, [8:25] hindi ba? [8:26] Pag may prosecution, [8:27] may defense, [8:27] kay ganitong korte, [8:30] or impeachment court [8:32] man yan, [8:32] or regular court, [8:33] you know, [8:34] you're all entitled [8:34] to your arsenal [8:35] of strategies [8:36] and tactics. [8:37] Ganyan naman talaga, [8:38] hindi po ba? [8:39] But this one is particularly, [8:42] this is a unique court. [8:43] Sui generis, [8:44] ilang beses na natin [8:45] yan naririnig. [8:46] And ilang beses [8:47] na rin hinimok [8:48] ng magkamilang padig [8:49] ang publiko. [8:51] So, [8:52] during your discussion, [8:54] meron ho bang [8:55] nagsabi na [8:56] paano ang publiko? [8:57] How do you think [8:58] they're gonna react [8:59] to this? [9:00] And if they react [9:01] this way, [9:02] how will it make sense [9:03] for us? [9:04] And why will this move [9:05] still be worth it [9:07] despite the criticism [9:09] that we may get [9:10] as public prosecutors [9:11] from the public? [9:13] Go ahead, [9:13] Congresswoman. [9:14] Of course, [9:15] that was part of our [9:16] long and repeated [9:18] discussions, [9:19] no? [9:19] But let me reiterate, [9:21] Carmina, [9:21] that it was [9:22] the public interest, [9:24] which was part also [9:25] of our consideration [9:26] why we came up [9:27] with this position [9:29] or decision, [9:31] no? [9:31] We understand [9:32] the length of time [9:33] that the public [9:35] has been waiting [9:36] for the conclusion [9:37] of this long [9:39] impeachment process, [9:40] and we thought of that, [9:42] na dapat wag magkaroon [9:45] ng opening [9:46] for further [9:47] dilatory tactics [9:48] so that the people [9:49] will see the ending [9:51] of this impeachment process. [9:53] did you just think [9:54] for the public [9:55] right then and there, [9:56] Congresswoman? [9:56] Because the public [9:57] would have, [9:58] I mean, [9:58] me, for example, [9:59] as a chronicler, [10:00] I would have wanted [10:01] to hear the answer. [10:04] Whether it's, [10:05] you know, [10:05] whether it satisfies [10:06] me or not [10:08] is out of the question, [10:09] but you led us there, [10:11] you led the public [10:12] to that point [10:14] wherein we want answers [10:15] only to let us down [10:17] in the end. [10:18] We understand that, [10:20] Carmina, [10:21] but we have to acknowledge [10:22] that we've given [10:23] also repeated opportunities [10:26] to the respondent [10:27] to answer the allegations, [10:29] no? [10:29] As I have said [10:30] as early as 2024, [10:32] yan na rin yung mga issues [10:34] or charges [10:35] raised against her, [10:36] but the contents [10:38] of her answer [10:39] all raised [10:40] constitutional issues, [10:41] procedural issues, [10:43] and never addressed [10:44] squarely the allegations [10:46] contained therein. [10:48] Then dumating [10:49] yung pangalawang impeachment. [10:51] The same answers, [10:52] constitutional [10:52] and procedural issues. [10:54] We had the hearing [10:55] in the Justice Committee, [10:57] they did not appear [10:58] and instead [10:59] made a public pronouncement [11:01] that they will be [11:03] appearing [11:04] on the proper forum. [11:06] They will be answering [11:07] in the proper forum. [11:08] Pagdating naman [11:09] ng Senado, [11:10] when we received [11:11] the answer [11:12] of the respondent, [11:13] same answers, [11:14] constitutional [11:14] and procedural issues, [11:16] no? [11:16] So kung opportunity [11:18] ang pag-uusapan, [11:20] Carmina, [11:21] I think we have given [11:22] repeated opportunities [11:23] to them [11:24] na kung sasagutin [11:26] talaga nila yan, [11:27] dapat noon pa [11:28] at hindi na sana tayo [11:30] umabot [11:30] ng ganito kalayo. [11:32] But what about [11:32] for the public to... [11:34] What about... [11:35] Precisely. [11:35] The opportunity [11:36] for the public [11:37] to formulate [11:37] their own opinion, [11:39] Congresswoman? [11:40] We are very much [11:41] concerned of the public [11:42] and that's why [11:43] we wanted them [11:44] to witness [11:45] the conclusion [11:46] of all this [11:46] impeachment process. [11:47] I was saying, [11:48] Canina, [11:48] Carbina, [11:49] we have observed [11:50] the way they conducted [11:52] their cross-examination. [11:53] It's too lengthy, [11:54] no? [11:55] And most of the time [11:57] the questions [11:58] are totally irrelevant, [12:00] no? [12:00] And if they will be [12:01] doing this [12:02] during their [12:03] direct examination [12:04] plus their [12:05] redirect examination, [12:07] considering that [12:08] prior to withdrawal, [12:09] there is a total [12:10] of four articles [12:11] of impeachment. [12:12] Carbina, [12:13] baka 2028 na, [12:15] hindi pa tapos [12:16] yung impeachment process, [12:17] no? [12:18] Pagaman, [12:19] that is not [12:20] the sole consideration [12:21] of the prosecution. [12:23] As I have said, [12:24] tinignan din namin [12:24] yung interest [12:25] ng impeachment court, [12:27] who has been, [12:27] which has been challenged [12:28] by so many [12:29] other legislative functions, [12:31] and ultimately, [12:32] Carbina. [12:33] Nagtataka kami [12:34] kung bakit [12:35] nag-object ang defense. [12:37] Because as a matter of fact, [12:38] this operates [12:39] to their benefit. [12:40] Sapatkat, [12:41] iisa na lang [12:42] ang sasalagin nila [12:44] na nakabla, [12:46] di ba? [12:47] But this you have to know, [12:50] Congressman, [12:52] what Attorney Sheila Sison [12:53] said yesterday [12:54] about all the allegations [12:56] sort of thrown [12:59] with no resolution yet [13:01] for the public [13:02] to have digested already [13:04] and just waiting [13:05] for an answer [13:06] from the VP. [13:08] That resonated [13:08] with a lot of people [13:09] as well. [13:10] Naparabagang [13:11] nagpakawala [13:11] ng mga allegasyon, [13:14] naghihintay ngayon [13:14] kami ng sagot [13:15] on the part [13:17] of the respondent. [13:20] That resonated [13:21] with the public [13:21] as well [13:22] that baka nga naman, [13:24] hindi patas [13:25] kasi nagkaroon [13:25] na ng allegasyon. [13:27] Saan pa siya [13:27] sasagot? [13:28] And then, [13:29] of course, [13:29] you remember this [13:30] because you yourself [13:31] said she can very well [13:32] answer in whatever [13:33] platform she chooses. [13:36] Pakiwari po kasi [13:36] ng iba, [13:37] pinangalagaan po kasi [13:38] yung proseso [13:39] from day one [13:40] up to day 39. [13:42] Pagkatapos in the end, [13:43] ahantong lang pala sa, [13:45] you can just answer [13:46] in whatever platform [13:47] you choose. [13:47] How does that make sense, [13:49] Congresswoman? [13:51] Carmina, [13:51] that statement [13:52] is anchored [13:53] on our observation [13:54] that the respondent [13:56] instead of appearing [13:58] in the proceeding [13:59] including the impeachment [14:00] court [14:01] to answer the allegations [14:03] considered to conduct [14:05] a regular press con [14:06] kung saan [14:08] sinasagot niya [14:09] yung mga [14:10] discussions [14:11] before the impeachment [14:13] court. [14:13] That's why [14:14] I was prompted [14:15] to say [14:16] the respondent [14:17] vice president [14:18] has been [14:18] doing as a matter [14:20] of regular practice [14:21] to conduct [14:22] press con [14:23] in order to comment [14:25] to what is happening [14:26] in the impeachment [14:27] court [14:27] or in the past [14:28] in the justice [14:29] committee. [14:30] So, [14:32] we were prompted [14:33] to say that [14:34] like your client, [14:35] like the respondent [14:36] vice president, [14:37] perhaps you may consider [14:38] other social media [14:40] platforms [14:41] if your intention [14:42] is only to make [14:43] your pieces of evidence [14:45] known to the public. [14:47] Because that's what [14:48] they are saying. [14:49] Nakita ng publiko [14:50] ang aming ebidensya, [14:52] yun sa kanila, [14:53] hindi pa. [14:54] Well, [14:54] if the respondent [14:55] has been answering [14:56] the issues [14:57] through the press con, [14:59] why don't the [15:00] counsel consider [15:01] that option as well [15:03] which their client [15:04] has been considering [15:05] for a long time [15:06] already? [15:07] Carmina. [15:08] Congressman, [15:10] we do know [15:10] that this impeachment [15:11] trial, [15:13] it does not exist [15:14] in a vacuum. [15:15] Alam naman po natin yan. [15:16] Patindi na [15:17] ng patindi [15:18] kung ano man [15:18] nangyayari [15:19] sa labas po [15:20] ng impeachment court. [15:21] Recently, [15:22] there was a survey. [15:23] The vice president [15:24] still enjoys [15:25] numbers, [15:28] a good number [15:29] in terms of [15:30] the support [15:32] for her [15:32] presidential run. [15:33] Did this have [15:34] anything to do [15:35] with the decision [15:36] to drop [15:37] the three articles [15:39] of impeachment? [15:40] Because one [15:41] of the punishment [15:43] is perpetual [15:44] disqualification [15:45] from office. [15:46] nakita ba [15:46] ng prosecution [15:47] na malaki pa rin [15:49] ang suporta [15:50] ng vice president [15:51] at kapag [15:52] hindi po siya [15:54] na-convict [15:55] at matanggal [15:58] sa karera [15:59] sa 2028, [16:01] then you're going [16:02] to have to [16:03] contend with that [16:04] when that happens. [16:05] Go ahead, [16:05] Congresswoman. [16:06] Carmina, [16:07] that survey [16:08] has nothing to do [16:09] with the recent [16:10] position of the [16:11] prosecution. [16:12] As I have said [16:13] earlier, [16:15] sobrang tagal na [16:16] nang usaping ito [16:18] and it's high time [16:19] to consider [16:20] the interest [16:20] of the public [16:21] and make sure [16:23] that they will see [16:24] and witness [16:25] the opportunity [16:26] of hearing [16:26] the conclusion [16:27] of all this [16:28] impeachment [16:29] processes, [16:30] Carmina. [16:31] So again, [16:32] to answer your question, [16:34] yung usapin [16:35] ng survey niya, [16:36] walang kinalaman [16:37] dito sa [16:38] naging position [16:39] ng prosecution [16:40] regarding [16:41] the withdrawal [16:42] of three [16:42] out of four [16:43] articles of [16:44] impeachment. [16:44] Congressman, [16:45] can we go back [16:46] to the confidential [16:46] funds? [16:47] Kasi dito naman po [16:48] kasi nagsimula, [16:49] hindi po ba? [16:51] It was that, [16:54] the confidential [16:55] funds. [16:56] And again, [16:57] repeatedly, [16:58] you've been asking [16:58] her to answer [16:59] and then you [17:02] dropped it [17:03] at the very end. [17:05] Ano po masasabi [17:06] niyo dun sa mga [17:07] tao na [17:08] ang pakiramdam [17:10] ngayon [17:10] ay [17:11] parang [17:14] nagamit [17:16] or [17:17] they were [17:18] taken for [17:18] a ride, [17:19] that they [17:20] were used [17:20] by the [17:21] prosecution. [17:22] What is [17:23] your appeal? [17:24] What do you [17:24] tell those [17:25] people? [17:27] Well, [17:28] honest to [17:28] goodness, [17:29] it was [17:30] our noble [17:31] consideration [17:32] for the [17:32] interest and [17:33] sentiment [17:33] of the [17:34] public [17:34] that led [17:35] us [17:35] to this [17:36] position. [17:37] We [17:37] understand [17:38] that it [17:38] started [17:39] from [17:39] confidential [17:40] fund, [17:41] but we [17:41] have to [17:41] remember [17:42] also, [17:43] 2024 [17:44] pa lang, [17:46] committee [17:46] on [17:46] appropriations [17:47] pa lang, [17:48] she refused [17:49] to answer [17:49] squarely. [17:51] And then [17:51] naging subject [17:52] matter siya [17:52] ng inquiry [17:53] in aid [17:53] of legislation [17:54] ng good [17:55] government [17:55] committee, [17:56] she refused [17:57] to answer [17:58] squarely. [17:59] And then [17:59] came this [18:00] first impeachment [18:01] complaint, [18:03] bagaman [18:03] denied siya [18:05] ng Supreme [18:05] Court, [18:06] but again, [18:07] hindi niya [18:08] sinagot [18:08] squarely [18:09] yung [18:10] allegation [18:10] on [18:11] confidential [18:11] fund. [18:12] And then [18:13] we had [18:13] a hearing [18:13] in the [18:14] justice [18:14] committee, [18:15] wala pa [18:15] rin, [18:16] they merely [18:17] raised [18:17] constitutional [18:18] and [18:18] procedural [18:18] issues. [18:20] Came [18:20] the [18:21] impeachment [18:22] trial [18:23] when they [18:23] filed [18:23] their [18:24] answer, [18:24] wala pa [18:25] rin, [18:25] no [18:25] substantial [18:26] answer [18:26] to the [18:27] allegations [18:28] on [18:28] confidential [18:29] fund. [18:29] So, [18:30] I think [18:30] Carmina, [18:31] speaking [18:31] about [18:32] opportunities [18:33] to hear [18:34] the answer [18:35] of the [18:36] responded [18:36] vice [18:36] president, [18:37] we've [18:37] given [18:38] a lot [18:38] of [18:39] opportunities [18:39] to [18:40] them. [18:41] Kung [18:41] may [18:41] ebidensya [18:42] talaga [18:42] sila, [18:43] bakit [18:44] pa nila [18:44] hinayaang [18:45] umabot [18:45] sa ganito [18:46] in the [18:47] first [18:47] place? [18:47] So, [18:49] part of [18:50] me is [18:50] saying, [18:51] if ever [18:52] since [18:52] wala [18:53] talagang [18:53] ebidensya, [18:54] what [18:55] evidence [18:55] are we [18:55] expecting [18:56] today? [18:58] In spite [18:59] of the [18:59] opportunities [19:00] that were [19:00] given [19:00] to them, [19:01] and again, [19:02] Carbina, [19:02] without sounding [19:03] repetitive, [19:04] this position [19:05] of the [19:06] prosecution [19:06] is for [19:07] the best [19:07] interest [19:08] of the [19:08] Filipino [19:08] people [19:09] to make [19:09] sure [19:10] that [19:11] they [19:12] see [19:12] the [19:12] light [19:13] at the [19:13] end [19:13] of this [19:14] tunnel, [19:15] dapat [19:15] makita [19:16] ng taong [19:16] bayan [19:17] ang ending [19:18] ng impeachment [19:20] process [19:20] na ito. [19:21] So, [19:23] kung hindi [19:23] niyo [19:23] gustong [19:24] sagutin [19:24] kung sino [19:26] ang [19:26] nagsuggest [19:27] na [19:28] i-drop [19:29] itong [19:30] tatlong [19:30] article [19:31] kasi [19:31] I think [19:32] I have [19:32] answered that [19:33] Carbina. [19:33] It represents [19:34] the collective [19:35] position. [19:36] So, [19:36] all of you [19:37] thought at the [19:38] same time? [19:40] Of course, [19:40] we discuss. [19:41] And then at the [19:42] end of the [19:42] long discussion, [19:43] we come up [19:44] with our [19:45] common [19:45] position. [19:46] And that [19:46] is now, [19:47] it represents [19:48] now the [19:49] collective [19:49] position of [19:50] the [19:50] prosecution. [19:51] I think [19:52] this has [19:53] been our [19:53] practice [19:54] ever since. [19:55] Sa lahat [19:56] ng mga [19:56] decision-making [19:57] in the [19:58] team. [19:58] That's how [19:59] we decide. [19:59] We consult [20:00] the entire [20:01] team, [20:01] we listen [20:02] to each [20:02] other's [20:04] position, [20:05] and then [20:06] we come up [20:07] with our [20:07] deliberation [20:08] until we [20:09] are able [20:09] to reach [20:10] a common [20:10] ground. [20:11] Which side [20:11] were you [20:12] on? [20:14] Well, [20:14] I think [20:14] that is [20:15] for us [20:16] to know [20:18] and keep. [20:19] We do [20:20] not want [20:20] to divulge [20:21] the details [20:22] of this [20:22] deliberation [20:23] within the [20:25] prosecution [20:25] panel. [20:26] What is [20:26] important, [20:27] we're [20:28] standing as [20:28] one in [20:29] our position [20:30] to withdraw [20:31] the three [20:32] out of four [20:32] articles of [20:33] impeachment. [20:34] Let's look [20:34] forward to [20:34] November 9, [20:35] Congressman [20:36] Luis [20:37] Strauss. [20:38] In the [20:38] beginning, [20:39] there was [20:39] doubt as [20:40] to how [20:41] this is [20:41] all going [20:42] to play [20:42] out. [20:42] It's [20:43] going to [20:43] be a [20:44] month's [20:44] rest. [20:45] And when [20:46] we do [20:47] resume [20:47] November 9, [20:49] the defense [20:50] might [20:51] have [20:52] the [20:52] momentum [20:53] because [20:53] everybody [20:54] may [20:55] forget [20:55] what [20:56] happened. [20:57] But with [20:59] the decision, [21:00] the ruling [21:01] yesterday, [21:02] that erases [21:05] the doubt [21:05] because it [21:06] will continue [21:07] on to [21:08] Article 2. [21:10] Was that [21:10] also part [21:11] of the [21:11] decision [21:11] that the [21:12] story [21:13] didn't [21:14] resume [21:15] November 9, [21:16] yun pa [21:16] rin [21:17] ang [21:17] pag-uusapan. [21:18] I think [21:20] our [21:20] position, [21:20] Carmina, [21:21] is very [21:21] simple. [21:22] All in [21:22] kami [21:23] sa [21:23] Article 2 [21:24] Unexplained [21:25] Wealth. [21:26] Dito [21:26] na [21:26] namin [21:26] ibubuhos [21:27] lahat [21:28] ng [21:28] aming [21:29] energy [21:30] in [21:31] defending [21:32] Article 2 [21:33] Unexplained [21:34] Wealth [21:34] because [21:34] you have [21:35] to [21:35] remember [21:35] natapos [21:36] na kami [21:36] sa [21:37] direct [21:37] examination, [21:38] sa [21:38] presentation [21:39] and all [21:39] that. [21:40] So it [21:41] will be [21:41] for the [21:42] defense [21:42] to [21:42] present [21:43] their [21:43] evidence [21:44] against [21:45] our [21:46] evidence [21:46] on [21:46] unexplained [21:47] Wealth. [21:47] We [21:48] intend [21:48] really [21:48] to [21:49] focus [21:49] on [21:49] this [21:49] one [21:50] particular [21:50] article [21:51] which [21:52] we [21:52] believe [21:52] is [21:53] very [21:54] much [21:54] supported [21:55] by [21:56] evidence [21:56] presented [21:57] already. [21:58] I guess [21:59] we'll [21:59] see you [21:59] back [22:00] in [22:00] the [22:00] court [22:01] come [22:02] November 9. [22:03] Congressman [22:03] Jervil [22:03] Luister [22:04] there, [22:05] lead [22:05] of the [22:05] House [22:06] Prosecution [22:06] Panel, [22:07] joining [22:07] us [22:07] this [22:07] noon. [22:08] Maraming [22:08] salamat po. [22:09] Thank [22:10] you, [22:10] Carmina, [22:10] and thank [22:11] you to [22:11] all our [22:12] viewers [22:12] and [22:12] followers.