'Napakagaling': Luistro commends 'diligent' Escudero as presiding officer of VP impeachment trial

[0:00] i wanted your reaction on the defense uh i'm not sure if it was attorney nervosa who read this or [0:07] another lawyer but he made a point and i'll rephrase no that number one the word assassin [0:13] was never used by the vice president just some points here sinabi niya na that's that's a term [0:20] that was concocted or sina uh said by other people ang sabi ni vice president may kinausap [0:28] na akong tao na kapag pinatay ako patayin niyo si ganon so dapat ang sinasabi ng defense dapat patay [0:36] muna siya that's one and in the assassin the word no number two is can the prosecution prove that she [0:45] actually did it kasi in effect i think what they're saying is that dutertes are known to be quite we've [0:53] seen it with the former president duterte they're very grandiose with their their words they say [1:00] things sometimes you don't know kung totoo o hindi so ang hamon ng defense in that uh speech is can [1:08] they prove that she's actually acted upon her words did she actually contact a person or bravado [1:16] lang bayon kung baga nagsasabi lang ba siya na ginawa ko to no joke no joke pero sa totoo wala [1:22] naman siyang ginawang ganon how do you move from their representative in response to your compound [1:31] questions yeah yeah gamitin na natin dito mong grounds for objection you mentioned about the former [1:38] president yeah yeah very bold in making his pronouncements no and tanong nasan ba ang former [1:47] president ngayon no secondly and uh as to whether we will be able to prove the same we have to make a [1:57] distinction between an ordinary criminal proceeding and an impeachable proceeding we are confident as far [2:08] as impeachment trial is concerned our evidence is strong but please do not ask from us a quantum of [2:19] evidence which is applied only in a criminal case kuntawagi na mga abogado proof beyond reasonable [2:28] that in terms of evidence napakalaki po nagdiprensya dito po sa impeachment trial there is no quantum of [2:42] evidence required at all as a matter of fact as sabi ng supreme court jan it depends on the conscience of the [2:50] senator judges as to whether we will be using propanderance of evidence substantial evidence clear and [2:58] convincing or ito pang uh well clear and convincing was mentioned in duterte versus asia but that is very [3:05] minimal compared to the to the quantum of evidence that is required in criminal case which is proof beyond [3:12] reasonable doubt bawal na merong slightest na duda no so yun ang aking that's how i respond to you to your [3:21] question kaya niyo bang patunayan na may kinuha talaga siyang asasin wait this is not a criminal case no [3:28] what war what we are testing here is whether or not the impeachable official continues to possess the fitness [3:36] to be able to serve as such and to be able to run to any public office in the future no fitness to as a matter [3:47] of fact come to think of it dito nga sa impeachment trial wala nga ditong punishment eh na imprisonment wala [3:56] diba ang sabi ng constitution no penalty further than removal and disqualification to hold any public office [4:05] although dinugtongan nila yan yung convicted impeachable official halimbawa may decision [4:11] na you can still be held answerable for prosecution tapos na impeachment doon impeachment trial may [4:20] decision na but still a criminal case can be filed in the proper forum if indeed yung mga naging allegations [4:29] of offenses doon constitute independently a criminal case no that's already [4:36] your closing statement to the senator that all that all speech you just did right there on [4:42] reminding the senator judges on the level of the quantum of evidence at hindi ito criminal case [4:49] yun na yun yun yung argument niyo on the 92nd day on the 92nd day [4:54] gusto ko karen mag comment dyan no kasi senator judges nga sila no siguro sakin lang ah ah hayaan [5:06] ang mga senator judges raise the questions that they like tapos if they feel na the answers are going [5:15] beyond beyond beyond what is proper ang enjoy na lang ay yung mga parties mga councils no [5:24] kasi parang sa akin lang ah this is just a personal opinion lahat sila senator judges dun eh [5:32] so presiding officer si si senator cheese but in as far as their prerogative to judge [5:43] kung guilty or not guilty kung susustain ba o hindi yung impeachment na inihatol ng house no is [5:52] susustain ba o hindi that's what that's the terminology that they use in the senate rules on [5:57] impeachment no whether or not the impeachment by the house will be sustained or not by the senate no [6:03] and that is equivalent to conviction and sa akin lang hayaan mag mag tanong the way they wanted [6:11] tapos ang i ang ipolis na lang nila eh yung magiging sagot ng parties if they believe that that is going [6:20] beyond the supposed manifestation only because purportedly nga parang pang closing statement na no [6:30] yun naman ay sa akin lang because all of them there have are on equal footing as [6:38] senator judges of the impeachment court but that is of course with all due respect to [6:42] senator cheese escudero na labakagaling naman ako'y tuwang tuwa sa kanya he's so diligent he's so [6:51] prepared parang parang yung nabasa niya lampas pa sa nabasa ko so i think we'll we'll go on uh the [7:01] presiding officer just a bit and there is no qualification under the law that a lawyer be the presiding [7:09] officer there's still a debate ongoing if you could only be the senate president but let's move [7:14] on from that seeing what you are seeing now you are a lawyer of course all the members of the [7:21] prosecution team are lawyers but technically when we look at the constitution walang requirement na ganon [7:28] seeing what you're seeing now dapat ba ang presiding officer lawyer doesn't have to be cheese but [7:35] now that we're seeing this now because of course davide was chief justice no juan ponce enrile was a [7:42] lawyer one of the best legal minds in the country so correct dapat lawyer as a matter of requirement [7:50] hindi no but for purposes of having an orderly proceeding no siguro realization ko yun [8:01] na okay din na lawyer na ang ginawang presiding officer kasi you will never know kung anong magiging [8:11] manifestations ng prosecution you will never know kung anong magiging manifestations ng defense [8:18] while we all understand that this is not a purely legal proceeding paano kung biglang bumagit ng legal [8:25] terminology yung parties so at least the presiding officer should be prompt to address no but i have nothing [8:36] against actually with senate president wing gachalian as a matter of fact no hindi ko pa nakita si [8:43] si senator cheese magpreside i was thinking na baka nga mas maging advantageous sa proceeding ang isang non-lawyer [8:55] to be able to humanize the proceeding because after all the filipino people needs to understand [9:04] everything that will happen that is happening this impeachment trial na ito and having somebody as [9:10] presiding officer who is a non-lawyer i think he will be able to to address the need to translate okay [9:20] the terminologies the proceedings and everything into something na maiintindihan ang lahat ng tao [9:28] but then the hard part i just want to end with this is if you're a non-lawyer how do you actually then know [9:34] when to sustain or overrule right it's like a running joke now with so many people using the [9:40] words overruled sustained and the way the defense is objecting right the way the defense is objecting [9:49] you would need a lawyer to say in effect in your legal parlance enough right yeah that's when but [9:58] now on that point i agree with your observation so let's move on now so in terms of strategy no ito ang [10:07] una ninyo no itong grave threats and yung number two nyo i believe is confidential funds that is [10:15] correct okay ang tanong ng ilan what bucket you on gayong yung expose ni former senator antonio [10:23] trilianis of the bank accounts right he had the accounts itself he knew the bank branch bpi julia [10:31] vargas and others and we have seen era and corona i mentioned this to you before when the bank manager [10:39] appears and says yes that is the account of corona yes jose villarde is era estrada that was the game [10:47] changer for those trials okay so we perfectly understand that now yung hule which is unexplained [10:59] wealth is the one which the people are really looking forward to see no but nonetheless let me [11:05] explain this confidential fund is so familiar to us okay this bribery is so familiar to us the same way [11:15] that this threat is very familiar to us why kasi itong tatlong ito no i think except for threat but for [11:24] confidential fund and bribery ito yung naging subject matter ng inquiry in aid of legislation ng good [11:30] government and public accountability no so parang ang naging consideration man let's start with something [11:38] by which we are very familiar with no yung unexplained wealth we understand the gravity of the [11:44] allegation and we wanted to feel the level of confidence na ready na kaming ilatag no [11:53] so but uh do you have witnesses coming from the banks definitely as a matter of fact that will be the [12:01] subject matter of the oral argument this coming wednesday no kasi may final tayo meron po tayong [12:09] nire-request the impeachment court na issuance and sabina sa mga bank officials uh bank records no that [12:17] includes also and sabi ni presiding officer kahapon is sabay na natin sa oral argument yung sa amlak records and [12:25] even the bir records why isa kasi ang issue dito eh it includes acts and omissions prior to 2022 [12:35] when the respondent became an impeachable official so the issue there is whether or not we can actually [12:42] use the evidence for the purpose of this impeachment trial to be particular those evidence pertaining to [12:49] accident omissions committed prior to 2022 so that will be the the very issue of the oral argument [12:58] and even the memorandum which the parties will be submitting and it concerns the three the three [13:04] documents and officials that we already requested for the issuance of salpina bank amlc and uh bir [13:14] are baka nga dapat sinama yung sec pero pati bir what about the i think uh national internal revenue [13:22] code we're in with a person's income tax returns or tax records the the person itself has to issue a [13:30] waiver or the president has to order the bir to open it paano yun well as far as i can recall no [13:39] ang issue na pre-announced to be the subject matter of the oral argument and the memorandum is the [13:48] validity of including evidence prior to the term no we are talking about the documents before 2022 [13:59] but the one you mentioned is another thing it's about confidentiality no na kailangan muna ng waiver [14:08] is [14:11] or [14:13] but we already filed our request for the issuance of subpoena to bir we are anticipating [14:19] nasasagot sila at dun sa sagot nila malalaman natin karen magko comply ba kami o hindi [14:26] uh dun sa kanilang sagot na yun they are supposed to [14:30] to support their position go magko comply ba sila o hindi perhaps makikita din natin don if they are in [14:38] their position and they are trying to resort to the authority to be to be solicited from the [14:46] executive no through the executive secretary similar to what happened in the past impeachment cases [14:54] all right now we're being very careful not to discuss the merits of the case itself but the lead [15:01] defense is attorney sheila season how would you what why would you describe her opening statement [15:08] i mean i think this would be interesting well her opening statement is similar to [15:14] her affirmative defenses no in fact kagaya noong naging concern ng mga senator judges about the [15:24] manifestation of the manifestation of attorney lee gutan doon sa article on threat [15:30] the manifestation ni at her sheila it can be appreciated also as a closing statement [15:38] because it it raises all the arguments on conti constitutionality procedural [15:48] and she even brought up the coa disallowance yeah even the coa disallowance it went on to the details [15:57] of the articles the ending nun ang ending nun in raising all those constitutional issues and procedural [16:04] issues is to seek the outright dismissal of the articles of impeachment that is if you we will go over [16:12] the their their answer again no and i wish to share also yung answer nila almost the same dun sa [16:20] answer nila sa justice committee and almost the same dun sa kanilang petitions pending before the [16:27] supreme court so apparently no para sa understanding ng ating mga kababayan karen wala pa po tayong [16:36] nakikitang responsive na sagot dun sa allegations mismo ng offences like for example yeah number one dun sa sred so [16:48] ang sasabihin nila iba ang konteksto nun no ibang konteksto nun but actually uh they are supposed to [17:00] expound or explain more than more than context no eh bakit ba talaga sinabi yun okay about [17:10] the confidential fund i think mas gusto ng tao yung makita san ba talaga nagastos yan di ba and [17:22] then for bribery yun din ang gusto ng tao malaman kanino ba talagang pera yung tinanggap nila [17:31] merkato ni osiyas at saka ni katalan no and for unexplained wealth of course the people would like to [17:39] know you know san ba nang galing ito 6.7 billion na ito bakit ba hindi tali yung lawful income dun sa [17:47] net worth things like that apparently they are anchoring their answer on issues of constitutionality and [17:57] issues of procedure issues of technicalities example palagi nilang ginagamit yung mini trial at [18:05] rinig ulit natin yan doon sa opening statement nila ginagamit din nila itong invalid referral [18:12] ng plenary papunta sa justice committee they repeatedly raise also the issue of fishing expedition [18:22] yeah no yeah and the justice committee actually looking for the evidence itself na dapat hindi daw [18:30] right yeah oh tapos may sinasabi pa silang predetermined na daw yung impeachment complaint even before [18:39] we started the hearing in the justice committee biased daw ang mga members pero eto naman this is not [18:46] about the evidence this has been my position ever since they filed the petition everything that we did [18:53] in the house is in compliance to the provisions to the extent of following the very letters minsan nga [19:03] narinig ko minsan si dean santa maria yata yun sabi niya parang parang na oover na ang house [19:08] dahil sa sobrang pag-iingat namin we opted na sundin hanggang kaliit-liit na requirement ng house [19:18] na sometimes nga yung duterte versus age rep tsaka yung yung rules ng house and even the constitution [19:25] sometimes they are not aligned no so kailangan pa namin dyan mag magkokos mag brainstorming ano ba yung [19:33] safest position natin dito na wala time of a violate kaya yung mga allegations nila doon sa [19:39] petition na kinerry over nila hanggang sa answer nila dito sa articles of impeachment we totally deny [19:47] that because we are maintaining the position that everything that happened in the house is [19:52] constitutional valid and in strict compliance yeah with the rules the constitution and the recent [19:59] jurisprudence okay but then when you when you said uh okay with with the first article of impeachment [20:04] the response on why did she say that the defense did say because number one they brought up plan uh [20:13] romanoff di ba parang plan romanoff which the romanoffs as we know in history were eliminated the [20:21] whole clan the whole race yung laki in eliminate so hence using the word plan romanoff no so parang [20:29] he annihilate in effect ang buong duterte clan parang ganun daw ang plano so according to the defense [20:37] that was asked by a princess maui in the online press conference hence the vice president responding [20:44] in that manner so to in effect sinagot yun kasi ang sabi niyo representative hindi sinagot sinagot yung dahilan [20:53] kung ba't niya nasabi yun is allegedly she was acting as responding as this is a quote mother wife [21:02] remember ginamit yun in court kaya ganun daw ang response niya so does that mean that they are admitting [21:11] having uttered those words because if they will be claiming that there is a romanoff thing no imputed [21:22] against the family then that would mean that they're admitting having uttered all those [21:28] that would have been that also would have been good court tv uh um and that is why karen no maraming issues [21:53] yung romanoff thing na yan eh no hindi lang yung romanoff may binanggit pang ang uh musulini maybe [22:02] may binanggit pang what happened to the marcos family sometime in 1986 something like that no okay and [22:10] at least i can say karen at least i can say karen isang witness pa lang naman uh na ii-presenta ng [22:17] prosecution let's wait and see until we present all the witnesses and pieces of evidence of the [22:24] prosecution in support of the articles on threat no this aside from the fact that we cannot dwell on the [22:31] merits no very premature for us to to analyze the defense and the causes of action of the [22:40] prosecution but we are confident that we will be able to substantiate and uh support the allegations [22:48] of threat now okay no merits pa tayo i'm sticking to no merits but unlike the era and i believe even [22:57] corona impeachment trial sa corona i could be corrected on this but kay era kasi si clarisa ocampo was the [23:04] smoking gun yun ang tawag nila diba the smoking gun e ito ang difference it is so organized you all [23:13] submitted the witnesses during the pre-trial nakabarpa ang evidence and number two with the rules on [23:21] witnesses if you are to introduce a new one parang may five days ang defense to am i correct no that's [23:28] correct correct these na ibinigay ang presiding officer that oh if they'll present you'll present you have [23:35] three days five days so technically nawala na yung smoking gun effect in a trial which adds actually when [23:44] you're watching a trial i mean i'm sorry to be brutal the excitement of a trial diba you i mean at the end of [23:52] the day when you watch when you watch these trials may gulat ka na huh sino to anong sasabihan [24:01] ito tinanggal na yun completely yes as a matter of fact karen to add to that most of the evidence [24:09] actually have been seen already during the justice committee proceeding no hindi lang siya hindi na [24:17] masasurprise kung hindi narinig at nakita na nila doon sa justice proceeding the only difference here is [24:24] this is a court already and after the presentation of the of the of the prosecution itong hindi pa nila [24:33] nakita yung cross examination ng defense no so on that on that observation i totally agree with you [24:42] and we have to consider also na yung nangyari kay president era by one-third unit so walang [24:50] clarificatory hearing sa house direct to the senate so every piece of evidence every witness we're [24:57] totally surprised di ba correct please lahat yun naman kay di ba yung corona one-third din ah [25:06] one-third din kay corona one-third din nagkaroon daw yun ng very short na proceeding sa justice [25:14] committee but eventually nakakuha agad ng one-third so binalik agad sa plenary parang hindi na nila [25:20] tinapos yun sa justice so basically yung dalawa may element of surprise yes that is one of our [25:27] challenges now and the corona the surprise was the 200 million in i i i could be corrected on the figures [25:34] today but 200 million on an account a total of 600 million with assets you know for whatever [25:42] it was there was a surprise so i agree ang iniisip is the surprise are only the bank accounts at this [25:50] point at this point yun na lang ang surprise nyo yeah pero sana samahan pa rin tayo no ng sambayan [25:58] ng filipino kahit sinasabi mong nawawala yung element of surprise except in the last article which we [26:06] will be presenting which is unexplained wealth because malaki po ang pagkakaiba nung sa house at saka [26:12] nitong sa senate kasi yung sa house po very limited lang yung mga questions na inalaw ko because remember [26:20] ang threshold natin doon is only probable cause we're just finding the reasonable justification to be [26:27] able to proceed to trial so i wish to claim na malaki ang difference ng proceeding na ito dun sa [26:34] naging proceeding ng house maybe yung mga tao you have idea already sino magiging witnesses sino [26:41] ano mga magiging dokumento to be presented no i agree to that with regards to that but with respect to the [26:48] entirety of the testimony which we will be soliciting from the witnesses this one is entirely [26:55] different kasi ito kailangan naming himayin isa-isa para pumasok sa records ng impeachment [27:02] raya minsan nga boring na yung mga questions di ba parang parang parang yung ibang tao inip na inip [27:10] even the senator judges manifestation ni ano ni senator judge uh bamakino right no yeah yeah yeah [27:20] we really need to do that because they all of them needs to form part of the transcript of records of [27:25] the impeachment trial so kahit nga alam na lang lahat na senator judges kahit nga alam na lang lahat [27:31] mga tao still need to raise that question kasi it's a matter of entering it into the record of the impeachment [27:37] all right this is my last question i don't know if this would be part of the merits but this could [27:42] be a surprise all right mary grace piatos right i don't know what the law says on of course ideally [27:51] you really protect the anonymity of somebody you use for intelligence right or peace and security [27:58] pero si mary grace piatos if the person is not real could also be a ground for the corrupt practice of [28:07] possibly the vice president so pano si mary grace piatos the person lilitaw ba yun panong sitwasyon [28:16] dun okay ganito na lang let me respond to that back to this way no [28:21] see mary grace piatos is part of our list of witnesses i understand she was included also by [28:30] the defense no really okay oh but i was not able to check if the impeachment court included that in the [28:37] pto the pre-trial order because that is the contract between and among all of us [28:45] but ultimately i wish to say as to whether or not papayagan ba ng court it will depend on the [28:52] judgment of the impeachment court of course we know that from the proceeding of the good government [28:58] committee back in the 19th congress talagang ang aming position is fictitious siya because psa already [29:07] said that there's no such name the palace in their day yes could be an alias yeah it is for the defense [29:16] to raise that yeah all right well on that note i want to thank you so much for joining me today i [29:23] mean considering you know you've been very tired very busy you gave us a wrap uh we really appreciate [29:29] it here and well the country will be watching next week i'll be anchoring already on monday again [29:35] so thank you for that ingat kayo ma'am thank you karen at maraming salamat po sa lahat ng ating [29:42] mga kababayan samahan nyo po kami hanggang sa matapos itong impeachment trial na ito sapagkat ito [29:49] para sa inyo hindi ito para sa amin salamat po all right that was the lead prosecutor representative [29:56] jirbil luis troo