‘Male-maletang ebidensya?’ VP Sara defense brings suitcases to pre-trial conference — ANC

[0:03] Thank you. [0:35] Thank you. [1:21] So hopefully we get to finish it within the day so that we can start working on the pre-trial [1:29] order. [1:30] So for a documentary? [1:31] Yes. [1:32] Marking of evidence. [1:33] Documentary evidence. [1:34] No. [1:36] They would just have to file their comments on the stipulation of facts, spur their commitment [1:40] the last time. [1:41] They'd file it until the end of office hours today. [1:47] So other than that, we just proceed with the marking of what remains of the documentary evidence [1:50] pertaining to articles 1 and 2. [1:51] Then after that, we'll review the transcript, we'll review the marking, and then we'll draft [1:58] the pretrial order for submission to the Enrichment Court. [2:01] So last day na ngayon, sir? [2:02] Hopefully. [2:03] Hopefully. [2:04] Hopefully. [2:05] Then we continue tomorrow, but we aim to finish it today. [2:06] Sir, considering the marking to, bakit may mga ubog-ubog na nagkakainita? [2:07] No. [2:08] No. [2:09] No. [2:10] Every time lawyers go out and ask them, you know, what's going on? [2:11] What's going on? [2:12] We'll review the transcript, we'll review the marking, and then we'll draft the pretrial [2:14] order for submission to the Enrichment Court. [2:15] So last day na ngayon, sir? [2:16] Hopefully. [2:17] Hopefully. [2:18] Hopefully. [2:19] Hopefully. [2:20] Hopefully. [2:21] Then we continue tomorrow, but we aim to finish it today. [2:28] Sir, considering the marking to, bakit may mga ubog-ubog na nagkakainita? [2:35] No. [2:36] So, every time lawyers gather together in a room, you can expect that, no? [2:41] It will be unusual if there will be no exchanges between lawyers. [2:44] So, nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary. [2:47] It's something that you expect whenever lawyers discuss. [2:51] Pero, sir, yung sin-sabi yung mga nilamu ni Pinito si Kanya? [2:54] Ah, no. [2:55] That's not true. [2:56] That's not true. [2:57] That's not true. [2:58] But there were... [2:59] We provided food, no? [3:00] Ah, food. [3:01] No. [3:02] Pero meron mga argumento, but the question... [3:04] There were some exchanges, there were some discussion, but again, nothing out of the ordinary. [3:10] It's something that you should expect from lawyers. [3:13] Attorney, may mga... [3:14] Natanggal ba na evidencia? [3:16] Nakasunodin siya mga... [3:17] Natanggal? [3:18] Wala naman. [3:19] Ah, it's just marking. [3:20] It's just marking. [3:21] It's just marking. [3:22] Questions on the admissibility of evidence will have to be determined during trial. [3:26] Sir, even sir, so with the assessor, wala sir, yung mga parang eliminator? [3:29] None. [3:30] None. [3:31] None. [3:32] Lahat siya ang pre-trials? [3:33] Yeah. [3:34] Ah, they decided that the list of witnesses shall be as submitted in the respective pre-trial [3:39] groups. [3:40] So, walang surprise si anong pre-trials na nare-expect? [3:43] Ah, so far, I haven't seen any of that sort. [3:47] But, kung sir, if it may pre-trials, ang up-assumption dun, lahat nandun na na-precent. [3:52] So, possibility naman dina-bar representation ng surprise witnesses and documents. [3:57] Ah, both parties have the right to make reservations as to witnesses that may not be available [4:03] yet during pre-trial, and they would have to inform the parties of the calling of such [4:09] witnesses at least three days before the schedule appearance. [4:12] So, that's allowed in the rules of court. [4:14] That's also allowed here in the tuition court. [4:16] Thank you very much. [4:47] Thank you very much. [5:18] Thank you very much. [5:20] Thank you. [5:22] Thank you. [5:24] And what is important, of course, is with regards to the start of the trial, it is certain that it will commence on July 6, as previously announced by the Senate. [5:39] Now, about the pretrial order, this is very important because it contains the stipulations of facts admitted by the parties. [5:48] It contains the list of witnesses. [5:52] It contains the mark exhibits. [5:55] It has to contain as well even the trial dates. [5:59] And I understand we filed our manifestation as well with respect to the order of presentation of the four articles, which we anticipate will be included as well in the pretrial order. [6:10] The pretrial order is very important because this is binding between the parties, including the impeachment court. [6:16] Whatever is contained there at, must be followed by all parties as we proceed to trial of the articles of impeachment. [6:25] Another important thing for today, we would like to introduce, of course, our legal spokesperson. [6:37] He is one of the assisting counsels. [6:39] To my right, of course, is attorney Benjamin S. Tulosa Jr. [6:52] As legal spokesperson, he will be speaking in behalf of the prosecution team, particularly with respect to the developments that are happening in the proceedings of the impeachment trial. [7:08] As a matter of fact, he can start today with respect to the updates that are happening in the pretrial confidence. [7:18] And he will continue to speak for us when we start the trial on July 6, 2026. [7:26] So, for the information of the public, attorney Tulosa is the founding and managing partner and head of the litigation and dispute resolution practice of the Tulosa, Lim, and Chua law firm, [7:45] where he leads a team of over 25 lawyers handling complex and high-stakes disputes. [7:52] He is likewise the in-house counsel of Fortune Global 500 multinational corporations, Philippine affiliate. [8:06] He is the general counsel of a regional conglomerate engaged in the retail and distribution of premium global brands. [8:14] He used to be the former, he used to be the senior associate of Accra Law, representing major corporations, senior executives, and public officials in complex and high-value disputes. [8:32] Attorney Tulosa is an awardee and a constant recommendee of Asia Law Profiles and Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Asia Pacific. [8:47] He's a graduate of University of Santo Tomas and ranked top 10 among the graduating class of 145. [8:58] For his pre-law, he finished Bachelor of Arts, major in legal management at University of Santo Tomas also in 2003. [9:08] And, of course, he was a recipient of the Outstanding Tomassian Award from the University of Santo Tomas Law Alumni Foundation, Incorporated. [9:18] So, we would like to acknowledge as well the presence of our fellow House Prosecutors. [9:26] From my right is Cong Lordan Suwan, Congresswoman Belle Zamora, Cong Chelle Jocno, Congresswoman Lila De Lima, Congressman Joel Chua, and Congressman Roj Gutierrez. [9:41] We are present today for the pre-trial conference and also for this press con. [9:46] Of course, we are conscious that the private prosecutors who are facilitating the marking are acting under our direct control and supervision as public prosecutors. [9:58] Thank you. [10:04] For a short message first from our legal spokesperson, Attorney Jay Tulosa. [10:12] Good morning, everyone. [10:13] So, first, thank you so much for that very kind introduction, Congresswoman Luis Trueno. [10:19] As we all know, the impeachment is a pivotal constitutional proceeding. [10:26] In fact, it's one of the most important accountability mechanisms for public officials under the Constitution. [10:34] So, as a trial lawyer, I found it to be a meaningful opportunity to place my experience in the service of that process. [10:45] So, for now, as mentioned by Kong Jinki, I will focus on acting as a spokesperson. [10:56] But, of course, the main spokespersons will still be Congressman Adyong and Co. [11:02] And the main purpose, I guess, for me, is since I will be actively participating in the trial as well, and I'll be inside the courtroom, [11:11] if there are quick updates that I need to communicate to the public and answer questions that you may have, [11:17] I'll be available and provide that information to you. [11:20] So, I would like to clarify my earlier statement. [11:27] Attorney Jay Tulosa is not only a legal spokesperson. [11:31] Soon, he will be entering his appearance as well as one of the private prosecutors. [11:36] So, indeed, he will be participating actively in the trial. [11:41] Thank you. [11:49] Okay. [11:49] We may now open the table for questions. [11:54] Please identify yourself and the panelists. [12:00] You may want to address your inquiries. [12:02] Ma'am, Gabriel Lalo po from Inquirer. [12:06] Ma'am, just first question po. [12:08] Kasi noong weekend, over the weekend, may mga kumalat na rumors na parang, [12:12] parang nagkala mo na ng buhay daw po, na parang ganun yung nangyari. [12:17] Can you clarify po that chair? [12:20] That is not true. [12:23] I charge it to fake news. [12:26] And the people should become very cautious now in watching from the social media. [12:34] We should be careful in deciphering what is correct and what is false. [12:42] Of course, I am conscious that I am representing the interests of the sovereign Filipino people. [12:49] Hindi po ako papayag na lamunin ang buhay, ang laban ng sambayan ng Pilipino. [12:55] So, anything that they'll say about it, no, in terms of who really got the upper hand, of course, that will be viewed as bias. [13:03] So, to properly address that, let's stick to the facts. [13:06] Okay. [13:07] When you say, kinain, nagkala mo na, what does that mean? [13:10] It means someone got an upper hand compared to the other. [13:14] So, what happened? [13:16] It's a pretrial conference. [13:17] So, in that context, to say that you got the upper hand, it should mean that you're able to get favorable rulings on your part. [13:24] But that's impossible. [13:26] Why? [13:27] Because the clerk of the impeachment court cannot even make any rulings. [13:33] So, that's factually impossible. [13:35] Now, but what I can say also factually is that we were able to secure or successfully achieve our goal. [13:47] What is that? [13:48] To ensure that the pretrial would proceed in an expeditious manner. [13:54] Right at the start of the pretrial conference, there was an attempt on the defense to raise an issue regarding the two-thirds threshold. [14:01] To pose this as something that must be resolved before pretrial could commence. [14:06] And that is something that was quickly shut down by Congressman Lewis. [14:10] And in fact, as you know, we were able to complete already the markings of evidence for two articles of impeachment. [14:20] And today, we're continuing with two other articles of impeachment, which is one for confidential funds and unexplained wealth. [14:30] And we're hoping to finish that as soon as possible as well. [14:33] If I may add also, I think as the state, as this proceedings progress, we can expect more of that. [14:43] More of disinformation, more of fake news, more of factual distortion, spins of the real stories of the things that happened as the proceedings progress. [14:53] Lalo na pagdating natin sa trial proper. [14:56] So, we just have to be very circumspect and careful about perceiving things and in our reporting. [15:02] So, this is more sa SOC med. [15:05] And we should be very careful about these things. [15:09] Because this is a highly charged event, of course, of the country. [15:16] So, certain players might be doing things that would again try to undermine, especially the cause of the prosecution. [15:25] Thank you. [15:25] Ma'am, second question po. [15:31] Kanina po kasi, bago mag-start yung pretrial conference, and dun po yung mga lawyers from both the defense and the prosecution. [15:37] Tapos, parang nakita sila na parang nagmiminggil naman, nag-uusap-usap. [15:42] I know na normal ito, pero just to clarify po sa public. [15:47] Baka po kasi may mag-isip ng kung ano na parang bakit magkakasundo pala sila after all. [15:53] Can you clarify po? [15:54] Well, all of us are lawyers. At least we must be cordial with each other because we belong to the same legal profession. [16:06] Nevertheless, of course, we are committed to our respective causes. [16:10] The prosecution is here to prove its case in this impeachment trial. [16:16] Well, the defense is there in order to prove the innocence of the respondent. [16:21] That is what we meant by adversarial proceeding. [16:24] But it does not negate the supposed cordial relationship among the members of the bar. [16:36] Magandang umaga po. I'm Kenneth from the Inquirer. [16:40] This question is addressed to Congresswoman Jinky Luistro. [16:45] Ma'am, how would you describe the atmosphere of the pretrial proceedings [16:48] and what stipulation of facts, evidence, and witnesses have been established and admitted so far? [16:56] Please understand that we cannot dwell on the merits of this impeachment trial. [17:05] That includes the details on the stipulation of facts, the list of witnesses, and even the marking of documents. [17:14] Nonetheless, to respond to your question about the atmosphere, [17:17] the atmosphere, the atmosphere is very passionate in a sense that the prosecution is very much committed [17:24] to prove its case, while the defense is likewise very much committed to prove the innocence of the respondent. [17:31] And a follow-up po. May mga records po ba, records, evidence, or witnesses [17:39] that were contended by the defense panel or were stricken off from the trial itself? [17:46] As to striking off records, no? That is not supposed to happen during PTC. [17:55] Because by striking off, you are addressing the admissibility of the documentary exhibits. [18:00] And that is not allowed. That is not a proper subject of pretrial conference. [18:06] Questions about admissibility of documentary evidence must happen during the trial. [18:11] Okay. And you mentioned na gusto ng prosecution team to expedite the pretrial conference itself. [18:21] But may mga challenges and limitations. Could you elaborate anong challenges, limitations itong kinakaharap? [18:27] For example, today, we would like to have three teams for confidential fund. [18:33] That is for the purpose of marking of our exhibits. [18:36] Because we understand that our exhibits for Article 1 is indeed extremely voluminous. [18:44] This is the misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of confidential fund. [18:54] However, the defense could not agree to that, claiming that they do not have sufficient lawyer [19:00] to attend on the third team of the supposed marking of exhibits for confidential fund. [19:06] So we understand that. [19:08] And as a matter of fact, we consider that as one of the limitations and challenges [19:12] in our objective to proceed and terminate at the soonest possible time, [19:20] the instant pretrial conference. [19:23] Last question na lang po. [19:27] Ma'am, could you describe how vital the pretrial conference is [19:30] when it comes to shoring up or bolstering the prosecution team's case [19:37] sa magiging trial po ni Vice President Sara Duterte? [19:42] This is very significant. [19:44] Ito pong pretrial order na ito ay pinagkasunduan ng dalawang parties, [19:54] the defense and the prosecution, [19:58] with, of course, the intervention of the impeachment court. [20:03] This is supposed to serve as the blueprint, the guide, the roadmap [20:10] in the upcoming impeachment trial. [20:14] In other words, matters which were not incorporated in the pretrial order [20:22] cannot be presented during the trial. [20:27] By pinagkasunduan, what we meant is, with respect to the trial that will happen, [20:34] matters which can be agreed upon by the parties are included in the PTO, [20:39] and matters which cannot be agreed upon by the parties are considered as disputed issues [20:46] and controversies, and they should be included as well in the pretrial order. [20:51] As to the significance, mahalaga po ito dahil ito dapat ang susundin sa paglilitis na gaganapin. [21:00] Ang mga ebidensya na hindi naisama sa pretrial order as a general rule [21:05] ay hindi pwedeng ipresenta during the trial. [21:08] Good morning po, Kongs. [21:18] Kay Kong Jerville po. [21:20] Kong Jerville, in your previous interview, [21:23] sinabi niyo po na pwedeng tumagal yung impeachment trial ng three months. [21:27] Nananatili po ba itong timeline na ito, [21:29] or there is a possibility to mapahaba pa po yung paglilitis? [21:35] If I will consider the number of witnesses and exhibits of both parties, [21:43] mukhang hindi kakayanin ng hanggang September lang. [21:46] But nevertheless, the number of trial dates for the prosecution and the defense [21:53] is subject to the discretion of the impeachment court. [21:58] So it will be the impeachment court who will have the final say, [22:02] kung ilan ang trial dates na ipagkakaloob sa prosecution, [22:06] in the same way kung ilan ang trial dates na ipagkakaloob sa depensa. [22:09] Pero nag-reflect na po ito dun po sa ibinigay niyo pong trial dates [22:17] sa impeachment court, yung more than three months. [22:20] We submitted our list of witnesses and documents, [22:25] including the possible number of trial dates. [22:29] But of course, it is submitted for the resolution of the impeachment court [22:36] as to how many trial dates will be provided to us. [22:40] You can raise questions to our legal spokesperson. [22:43] Yes. [22:44] Sorry, just to add to that. [22:48] The prosecution asked for 62 trial dates and the defense asked for 30. [22:55] 30? [22:58] 30. [23:00] 30 trial dates. [23:05] 62 trial dates for the prosecution and 30 for the defense. [23:09] But of course, this could change during trial. [23:13] It doesn't necessarily mean that we will need 62 days, for example, [23:18] because if the court would allow us to present, for example, two witnesses per day, [23:25] then it could be shorter. [23:27] So it will depend on how it will actually unfold during the trial. [23:32] Yung 62 trial dates, yun po, is to present your evidence and witnesses. [23:42] That's correct. [23:43] Okay po. [23:45] Today po yung deadline po sa both camps to file their comments on the stipulation process. [23:52] May we know what is the gist? [23:55] Yes. [23:56] About that issue, maybe if I could just clarify because it was asked a while ago. [24:00] So during the pre-trial conference, [24:04] there was initially an attempt to discuss each and every post stipulation. [24:10] But to abbreviate the proceedings, and which is exactly what we wanted also, [24:15] the clerk of court allowed the parties to just file their written comments [24:20] and counter proposals to each other's proposals for stipulation. [24:24] And we're happy that that happened. [24:26] Otherwise, baka hanggang ngayon ho, hindi pa kami nakapag-start ng marking. [24:31] So that's one thing. [24:34] As to the submissions of the parties, let's just wait for that. [24:38] Both parties will comply with the deadline within the day. [24:43] Just to clarify, may kalaki po bang motion yun pong comment nyo po sa stipulation process? [24:48] Any motion? [24:48] No, it's just a compliance to the clerk of court's directive to file our comments [24:55] or any counter-stipulations to their own proposals for stipulations. [24:59] Sorry, last na lang po. [25:01] Just for soundbite purposes po, 62 trial dates ang pong nilatag ng prosecution panel [25:07] while 30 trial dates ang defense. [25:10] Why? [25:12] Because of the number of witnesses that we've identified in our respective pre-trial briefs. [25:19] But you will note that in their pre-trial brief, because they've adopted most of our own witnesses, [25:28] they actually listed 97 witnesses, no? [25:34] So it's also a question if how come they listed 97 witnesses but they only asked for 30 trial dates. [25:43] Maybe this is an indication that there's really no intention to produce all of those witnesses. [25:48] But of course, no, we don't want to preempt. [25:50] So just to be more specific, for the common witnesses, there are 16 named common witnesses [26:03] and there are 35 unnamed. [26:06] What do we mean by unnamed? [26:08] Because in their pre-trial brief, you will see there that there are a lot of witnesses [26:14] which are not actually named. [26:15] For example, six or seven representatives from the office of the vice president, [26:21] three representatives from the BIR. [26:24] So meaning, but on our part, no, we identified particular officials or officers from the offices, [26:32] but so common would be 51, both named and unnamed. [26:36] And I'll also add, no, since about that point, for the exhibits, we have 248 common exhibits, [26:49] meaning 248 out of the 276 exhibits of the prosecution were basically copied also in their pre-trial brief, [27:01] or listed also as their evidence. [27:07] Pwede pong mag-clarify, sir. [27:09] Mabilis lang po na clarification. [27:11] Yung 62 trial dates, yun po ang proposal nyo. [27:15] Tapos yung defense, yun ang proposal na ay 30. [27:18] Yeah, that's correct. [27:20] But as pointed out by Jinky a while ago, then that will depend on the impeachment court's discretion. [27:29] So those are the dates that we asked for. [27:31] And we will see in the pre-trial order, once it's issued, the actual number of dates that will be allocated to each party. [27:40] Hello po. [27:41] Good morning. [27:42] I'm Lance from Newswatch Plus. [27:44] Kay, attorney Tulao Sapono. [27:45] So earlier, you mentioned po that the defense during the pre-trial conference raised a concern on the threshold for conviction. [27:54] Tama po ba? [27:55] Can you just elaborate or kung ano po yung pwede nyong ibahagi sa amin? [27:59] Ano po ba yung naging issue ng defense doon sa threshold for conviction? [28:03] And for the prosecution team, ano po yung buong posisyon ng prosecution? [28:09] Should it be lowered now to 15? [28:11] Kasi as I remember yung sabi ni Congressman Jinky last time, for her personal opinion, it should be lowered to 15. [28:19] Dahil 22 yung votes, 22 yung nasa coercive powers. [28:24] Pero yung position po ng prosecution, ano po yung position natin? [28:28] Okay. [28:29] First, at the start of the pre-trial conference, there was an attempt from the defense to pose this issue as something that should be tackled [28:40] before we could proceed with the pre-trial conference itself. [28:44] But as I mentioned a while ago, that was quickly shut down by Kong Luistro by pointing out, no, that's not a matter that could be decided by the clerk of court, no? [28:54] And it should not be used to delay the pre-trial conference. [28:58] As to our position on that, this is, as I hope you'll understand, since it's possible that this is an issue that may come up during the proceedings, [29:10] it will not be proper for us to talk about it at this point. [29:14] But what I can say, no, is that the intention of the prosecution is to make sure that we'll be able to establish a compelling case [29:25] backed by overwhelming evidence such that regardless of how this two-thirds requirement will be interpreted, [29:32] we will be able to secure it. [29:35] Another question lang po. [29:37] Everything will come out naman po on the pre-trial order. [29:39] But are you allowed to share right now kung ano po yung at least preferred ng prosecution na order of presentation? [29:48] That's being finalized. [29:49] And as I've mentioned, we will file that submission within the day. [29:52] Last question na lang po on my end. [29:54] Since we're, I think, two weeks away from the trial, how are the preparations going for the prosecution panel? [30:04] Alam ko po, nagkakaroon kayo ng iba't ibang paghahanda, nagmamak trials kayo. [30:09] Pero ano na po yung level ng kahandaan ng prosecution ngayon? [30:17] Let's ask this question to Kongchel. [30:26] Handang-handa naman po ang mga prosecutor para sa trial. [30:30] At alam namin na malaking trabaho yan, malaking haman para sa hamen. [30:35] And we are doing everything we can to ensure our readiness for July 6. [30:44] Good morning. [30:46] Good morning po, Prosecs. [30:47] And to the spokesperson, I'm Earl Tobias from IBC News 13. [30:51] First, Attorney Tolosa, sir. [30:54] Hi. [30:54] Sir, before you mentioned na parang nakkinapi lang ng defense panel yung ilan sa mga testigo ninyo, [31:01] a lot of concerns already have aired. [31:04] Spokesperson ko said that the pre-trial brief of the VP Defense Camp looks like a mirror of the witnesses from the prosecution team. [31:13] Do you have the same observation po? [31:14] Objectively speaking, as I've mentioned to you a while ago, were you asking about the documentary exhibits? [31:26] Yes, sir. [31:26] And as well as the common witnesses. [31:28] Yes, sir. [31:29] So as I've stated, we have 51 common witnesses. [31:34] And out of the 27, 276 exhibits of the prosecution, 240 are common. [31:43] So, you know, if we'll just stick to the facts, those are the common evidence of the parties. [31:49] Do you deem it sufficient? [31:51] Were the VP Defense Camp able to explain under brief why such the same mirroring occurred? [31:58] I think, yeah, that's a question for them to answer, no? [32:06] But what's curious for us is, you know, as you could see in their answer, you know, most of their defenses are technical and procedural arguments, right? [32:18] So, you know, so, at the very least, this shows that, I guess the question being asked is, if you want to explain, for example, the source of the subject unexplained wealth, then you'll be expected to present your own evidence to explain that. [32:44] But we cannot see that in the pre-trial brief right now. [32:47] Sir, just asking for confirmation or either denial because wala pong official na copy na parating sa media of the pre-trial brief because it's protected nga po. [32:58] But of course, some of its pages we've already seen, one of which is Ramil Madriaga, the defense team. [33:05] Also, we saw a passage saying, Ramil Madriaga, for this purpose, and it's like, it's also just the mirror of the prosecution team's pre-trial. [33:14] Would you confirm, sir? [33:14] Sir, maybe it will be better if we wait for the pre-trial order. [33:22] So, you will see who are the official witnesses listed by both parties. [33:27] Last question from my end po. [33:34] Sir, from this point forward, and for Prosecutor Jinky Luistro po, do we see any room of delaying the process pa po? [33:45] Any attempt to drag the process para lang po hindi mapamuna dumira siya sa trial? [33:51] Even if there will be attempts, the prosecution will remain firm in making sure that the trial will start on July 6, 2026, as previously scheduled by the Senate. [34:05] Good morning, Jonathan Andal, GMA News. [34:11] Balik ako lang po yung nag-circulate na report over the weekend. [34:14] The report also claimed that the House prosecution team appeared unprepared for the defense team arguments, [34:20] claiming that si Attorney Lorna Kapunan parao ang nagtake ng lead, [34:25] because allegedly the House prosecutors were struggling to keep up. [34:29] Can you clarify that part? [34:31] We are not struggling. [34:33] We are very much prepared. [34:35] But as I have said, it has been our position to have this pre-trial conference in an expeditious manner. [34:45] So, regardless of the manifestations that were raised by the defense, including counter-stipulations, [34:53] we maintained our position that that cannot be resolved by the clerk of court, [34:57] and therefore we should proceed immediately to the agenda of the pre-trial conference. [35:05] Our refusal to comment to the manifestations of the defense doesn't mean that we are not prepared. [35:12] We simply maintained our position that those issues are not proper for PTC, [35:19] and therefore we must confine to the agenda of the pre-trial conference. [35:26] Okay, we can entertain one more question if you have. [35:31] Okay, Raymond. [35:32] Good morning, everyone. [35:37] I'm Raymond Dalpaas from DCR. [35:38] It's on the part of the Senate. [35:40] Concerned ba yung lumabas na report recently na yung Senate, [35:45] apart from Senate President Sherwin Gatchel, [35:47] balak nila na mag-elect pa ng ibang possible impeachment presiding officer? [35:53] The name of Senator Cheese was floated. [35:57] Concerned ba ito sa project? [36:00] For us, we are aware that this is a constitutional duty. [36:03] This is not a question of who is the presiding officer. [36:09] So regardless of whether it is SP Winn Gatchelian or Senator Winn Escudero, [36:16] Senator Cheese Escudero, who will be presiding the impeachment trial, [36:20] the position is expressing at most faith and confidence to the impeachment court. [36:24] We can remember po na sinabi po ni Kong Luistro that ideally 11 din po ang maging public prosecutors. [36:42] Ngayon pong pinakilala po natin si Attorney Tolos. [36:45] So does this mean the private prosecutors are complete? [36:50] It will be more than 11. [36:53] We're still finalizing the second batch of private prosecutors [36:56] who will be entering their appearance as well to the impeachment court, [37:02] but definitely it will be more than 11. [37:05] Well, maybe you can consider Attorney Jay as the 11, [37:08] but definitely there will be more. [37:10] And we hope to introduce them within the week as well. [37:16] Thank you po. [37:17] Okay, one last question. [37:20] Thank you po. [37:23] Important lang po because na-mention na rin po earlier days, [37:26] ma'am and attorney, [37:27] na the defense camp, [37:28] pinatatanggal po nila lahat ng mga evidencia and attachments, [37:32] annexes na wala po sa original impeachment complaint. [37:35] Ano pong nangyari doon sa pre-trial? [37:36] And since meron pong comment na isasubmit today, [37:38] nanindigan po ba ang BP defense camp na dapat hindi isama yung mga wala [37:43] sa original impeachment complaint? [37:45] And would the prosecutor yield to that po? [37:49] We maintain the position that even evidence which were not attached [37:53] to the impeachment complaint can validly be presented before the impeachment court. [37:59] As a matter of fact, [38:01] that is the reason why the Justice Committee of the House of Representatives [38:05] was granted the compulsory process of issuing subpina duces tecum [38:10] and subpina ad testifigandum. [38:13] It will be highly inconceivable [38:15] if the evidence gathered in the exercise of this compulsory process [38:19] will not be considered by the Justice Committee [38:21] and even by the House of Representatives. [38:24] Same is true with respect to the impeachment trial. [38:27] It is clear in the Senate rules [38:29] that the impeachment court has compulsory power [38:32] to compel the production of documents [38:37] and to compel the attendance of witnesses. [38:39] And therefore, [38:40] all evidence gathered [38:42] in the exercise of this compulsory process [38:45] are therefore within [38:46] and aligned to the rules on impeachment [38:49] as well as with the Constitution. [38:51] Okay. [38:54] Thank you very much. [38:55] That concludes our press briefing for today.