Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial LIVE Day 41 — 3 Charges Withdrawn? Major Update — (October 20, 2026)

[0:00] to approve by way of an update yesterday um the chair the presiding officer asked for time [0:08] to prepare for um the subsequent steps that the trial court will make before we go on a recess [0:16] given that the prosecution has manifested that it will um it is finished with this presentation [0:23] on article 2 and has filed a manifestation last october 6 that it will be dropping um article [0:35] three on bribery within the department of education actually the chair up to now is still [0:43] finalizing our draft ruling so yesterday um attorney sheila after asking that we convene [0:50] at 8 30 in the morning today um unfortunately was not granted by the court had manifestations to make [0:56] so um would you care to make those attorney sheila or would you care to hear the prosecution first on [1:03] their intentions with respect to um article 3 and or resting the case thank you your honor good morning [1:12] your honors good morning good afternoon to the panel of the prosecute prosecution um we will allow the [1:17] prosecutions to make their um intentions known before we comment or okay do our own manifestations [1:26] your honor thank you the honorable joke noise recognized to make known his intentions i was going to [1:33] give away your honor to the defense but um thank you attorney sheila just a few administrative matters [1:41] first if your honors please with respect to the exhibit markings for the past witness i'm referring to [1:48] attorney cabrera we request that the following documents be marked first the curriculum vitae of attorney [1:56] alexander b cabrera as the prosecutions exhibit p dash roman numeral two dash nine dash one second your [2:08] honor the forensic report marked as the ex prosecutions exhibit p dash roman numeral two dash nine dash two [2:19] third your honors the annexes a to e of the forensic report has the prosecutions exhibit p dash roman numeral [2:27] two dash two dash nine dash two dash a and last your honor the flash drive as the prosecutions exhibit p [2:38] wrap dash roman numeral two dash nine dash two dash b there are other manifestations but i would like to [2:46] give way to the defense uh if you're honest the exhibits are concerned um the exhibits are um the exhibits [2:54] identified by um the honorable jocno are hereby ordered to be marked um at a later date um with the [3:02] clerk of court with the in the presence of um counsel for the parties would you like to make a similar [3:08] marking attorney sheila or none at this time none at this time your honor but um in any case if we do [3:14] decide to ask this court for additional marking we'll probably just uh file the appropriate manifestation [3:22] and request for a conference with the prosecution yes or if not during the marking of the evidence [3:27] for the prosecution you can so manifest the marking of any evidence already identified by any witness [3:32] thus far presented on the part of the prosecution yes your honor that's also an option for us yes that [3:38] is an option um really um our preferences of the prosecution proceeds first uh manifestations however um [3:46] um um just uh perhaps just one point so that uh we get uh this manifestation out of the way um further [3:55] the lady may proceed with her manifestation thank you your honor further to the kukan case that uh [4:03] i mentioned yesterday with respect to the piercing or the principle on the piercing of corporate veil or [4:11] fiction um in which we it uh stated that it is our belief that this court is of um uh duty to take uh [4:22] mandatory judicial notice of that case we uh also request that the case of amoroso versus vantage [4:31] greeting international and group of companies this is gr number 238477 which is a fairly recent case [4:41] which is promulgated in august 8 2022 be also included in the um case cases that this court will take [4:50] mandatory judicial notice of and just for the record i will just quote a very short portion of this [4:55] decision um which says that no court or quasi-judicial agency can acquire jurisdiction over a defendant or [5:06] respondent unless they are either validly or respondent unless they are either validly served with [5:10] summons or voluntarily appear in court the doctrine of piercing the corporate fiction is only applied [5:17] during trial to determine established liability because it presupposes that it had previously acquired [5:26] jurisdiction over a defendant or respondent and further along the decision the court also said that [5:36] being an extraordinary and equitable remedy applying the doctrine must be done with caution and the [5:44] reason really is very simple because due process must be respected and the respondent must first be [5:51] properly informed that legal action is being brought against them and be given the chance to respond to [5:57] the suit i will presume of course that the prosecution has a comment on this but nonetheless [6:04] we put on record the case again of amoroso versus vantage during international group of companies [6:11] at 2022 case your honor now with the rest of uh our manifestations we will allow the prosecution to go [6:18] first thank you thank you as earlier directed by the um presiding officer the case is mentioned by um the [6:27] uh lead prosecutor as as well as the cases mentioned by the honorable jock no um um in so far as these are [6:36] concerned the presiding officer instructed the clerk of court to furnish all the senator judges with a copy [6:43] of the same through their respective emails and i was informed just now by the clerk of court through annika [6:49] that um that um indeed they have been so furnished with copies of the cases mentioned after um we found [6:56] the citations to be um accurate in this regard yes honorable jock no um you're on that point if you're [7:04] honest please may i just inform the court that um in addition to the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil [7:12] being recognized in jurisprudence it is also a principle that is recognized as mentioned by attorney [7:20] cabrera yesterday in accounting uh just to inform the court i likewise make a reservation if you're [7:27] honest please anyway i believe we will be given time at the close of these proceedings to submit legal [7:34] memoranda to i just make a reservation to do so at the appropriate time your honor yes both legal memoranda [7:42] and closing arguments after the uh the culmination of the presentation of the evidence in chief [7:49] by the um respondent that will come at a later time um honorable jock no now moving to the october 6 [7:56] manifestation mary you stated that you were withdrawing your witness and um rather recalling the uh [8:02] issuance of subpoena in favor against a um an official of nbi and withdrawing um [8:09] um article 3 on bribery prior to arresting your case which will as you know in accordance with the [8:18] rules will trigger the corresponding order by the court on the um submission of a formal offer [8:26] comment there too and ruling of the court with respect to the formal offer take into account the [8:32] comments there too by counsel for respondent before the respondent begins the presentation of its evidence in [8:38] chief so can we take that up honorable jockner yes your honor may i yield the floor to our um [8:44] team leader of overall leader for the prosecution panel chair jinky louis the floor is yielded to the [8:51] fearless leader of um the honorable jockner the lead prosecutor um honorable louis stress recognized yes [8:59] ma'am your honor please please allow this representation to read this manifestation um there is no written [9:08] submitted submitted submitted manifestation correct me if i'm wrong we understand your honor yes mr [9:14] presiding officer the honorable senator judges four articles of impeachment were filed against the [9:27] respondent vice president today the prosecution respectfully manifest that it will no longer pursue [9:42] three of them it will stand on one and that is article two on unexplained wealth let me explain in three [9:59] parts first first our decision to focus on what is necessary during pre-trial the prosecution named numerous [10:17] witnesses but did not present all of them on the article on threats we named 10 witnesses and presented only [10:31] three three on the article on confidential funds we named 27 and presented only 11 on the article on unexplained wealth [10:46] we named 15 and presented 11 not counting the individual bank and insurance witnesses on the article on bribery [11:05] we will present none of the five witnesses we had named in all some 32 witnesses will no longer be called to the [11:18] witness stand this reflects the prosecution's considered decision to focus its case only on the witnesses [11:32] absolutely necessary for each article second the proceedings that will no longer be [11:43] necessary the prosecution has not yet made its formal offer of documentary evidence had we proceeded on all four [11:57] articles the impeachment court would have had to consider the evidence offered for each together with the [12:07] corresponding objections and arguments by focusing on one article the matters requiring the impeachment [12:18] and courts consideration are correspondingly narrowed with practical benefits for the senate the [12:29] respondent and even the public third why one article is enough the prosecution believes it has presented [12:43] sufficient evidence for article two to stand on its own all info tayo dito we believe that evidence is [12:56] substantial and is substantial and compelling and warrants the respondents removal from office [13:04] for culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of public trust article two the article on unexplained wealth [13:17] covers three matters one unexplained wealth two violations of the salen and three prohibited business interest [13:33] we believe we believe we have provided sufficient evidence on all these allegations in the prosecution's [13:41] assessment concentrating on this article is the most judicious course consistent with the evidence and our duty to the nation [13:54] therefore honorable senator judges beloved countrymen the prosecution formally manifest its withdrawal of [14:08] and intention of an intention to no longer pursue article one on confidential funds article three [14:20] on bribery and article four on threats we respectfully submit this manifestation to the honorable impeachment court [14:31] for its consideration and appropriate action we recall the impeachment trial of then chief justice renato corona in which [14:43] the prosecution likewise the prosecution likewise withdrew certain articles and proceeded only on the remaining ones that [14:53] president recognized the prosecution's privilege to determine which articles to pursue and which to drop this [15:04] manifestation is made in that same spirit to exercise the prosecution's judgment on which charges to pursue as well as to [15:17] to safeguard the interests of the nation against betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the constitution [15:27] thank you mr presiding officer thank you honorable senator judges the chair notes the manifestation of the lead prosecutor the honorable [15:37] louis trawl comment from um attorney sheila the lead prosecute lead um counsel for the respondent rather [15:44] thank you your honor we thank the lead prosecutor for the calendar today in that um it now has given formal notice that the prosecution [15:56] after 38 days after 38 days after 38 days and um expenditure of government resources [16:05] presenting all these witnesses [16:08] and uh so-called evidence [16:10] and spending all our time coming to court to court [16:14] is now formally withdrawing [16:17] um two of those articles for which they had presented evidence and we respect the decision [16:22] of the prosecution of the prosecution however whether this will affect how the defense plan to proceed [16:31] with its presentation of evidence is um something that we must make clear it will not because the prosecution [16:42] cannot make decisions for the respondent and the defense in other words the prosecution cannot be allowed [16:50] to have to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations [16:59] tested and the court has already heard the prosecution's alleged evidence and the interpretations it laid on them [17:08] and the public has been already exposed to its allegations repeatedly through long interjections [17:17] interpellations direct examinations and the many conclusions and opinions that several of their witnesses [17:25] have given before this honorable court and therefore the accusations have already entered the consciousness of those [17:36] who must ultimately render judgment in other words the prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having [17:44] its evidence heard while the respondent would be or um would be at risk of being denied [17:53] the benefit of having that evidence contradicted and we feel and we believe that this is not um fairness and [18:02] it is not in keeping with the guarantees of due process because the right to be heard is not merely satisfied [18:11] by allowing the respondent some room to present evidence on her behalf [18:18] it necessarily includes a meaningful opportunity to answer [18:23] material accusations already publicly advanced against her [18:29] especially in this case where those allegations have been placed before [18:34] the very tribunal that will decide this case and all for the entire country and member of this nation [18:44] for their hearing pleasure and so we believe that um even as we respect the prosecution's decision [18:56] to withdraw uh the three articles or the two articles um today in addition to article three or the bribery [19:03] um article the prosecution nonetheless cannot unilaterally determine how the defense will proceed or [19:12] which accusations the judges may hear and which um accusations the respondent may be permitted to answer [19:21] um it cannot make decisions for us and for the respondent because to allow this would be to confer [19:29] upon the prosecution the extraordinary and impermissible power to control not only the presentation of its own case [19:41] but also the scope and substance of the defense case now if the withdrawal is intended to shorten [19:49] the proceedings of this case or of the respondent or or of the presentation of the respondent's evidence [19:57] so that the court may immediately proceed to judgment then we believe that the resulting process would bear [20:04] the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial a proceeding in which the fundamental balance [20:15] between accusation and defense has been so seriously compromised because again on record we have spent [20:23] government resources time time energy of this court and of all the all the participants in this trial [20:33] presenting so-called evidence and hearing testimonial evidence from the witnesses that the prosecution [20:42] had chosen to present before this honorable court and yet the defense would now appear to be forced [20:52] um to limit its presentation or um its rebuttal to those evidence to whatever it is that the prosecution [21:01] had decided uh to retain in the articles of impeachment this we will never allow and while we recognize [21:11] that indeed the prosecution has that prerogative to withdraw um articles um in the articles of impeachment [21:21] that they had filed uh in fact we also recognize that the prosecution may in fact withdraw all articles of [21:29] uh impeachment but um of course they will not do that but that prerogative to withdraw an accusation [21:38] is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent the authority to streamline or to achieve speed [21:52] in a trial is not the authority to diminish due process or to altogether disregard fundamental rules of [22:03] fairness and the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly [22:14] and just to set the records three the lead prosecutor also mentioned the corona um impeachment trials [22:22] of president for its decision to withdraw um articles one and article four of um the articles of impeachment [22:32] but uh just so it is clear before this honorable court as i'm sure this court can confirm and verify from [22:39] the senate records and so that um marinig din ng ating mga kababayan kung ano ba talagang nangyari [22:46] sa corona trial nung binidraw ng prosecution ng kanilang article the withdrawal of the five articles out of the [22:53] eight articles in the corona impeachment happened before the presentation of evidence not after as in this case [23:02] your honor thank you um the court confirms um as an initial reaction that indeed it is not solely the [23:14] prosecutor's call or the prosecution's call to withdraw an article of impeachment but neither is it the [23:21] respondent's call to deny the same once articles of impeachment are filed before the court or any court for [23:29] that any complaint filed before any court for that matter it is already subject to and under the [23:35] jurisdiction and disposition of the court not by the party so we take this manifestation as a motion [23:43] that will be adopted um that will be acted upon by the court taking into account the um manifestation [23:51] which the court will take as an objection of the part of the um respondent and hence um yes [23:57] um yes do i take it as an objection am i correct uh no your honor or a manifestation against it um it's [24:05] just a manifestation your honor um just to set the record straight that um however the defense or the [24:12] respondent would want to um proceed with its presentation is of um our own um decision and that um of course [24:24] um if that's um if that's the call of the prosecution to withdraw certain articles from the articles of [24:30] impeachment that is their lookout and that is their prerogative now whatever will be the consequence of [24:36] that decision will be or would be for them to bear alone and not for the respondent so it's not an objection [24:44] to the withdrawal of um uh those articles i'm just making a manifestation on behalf of the defense and the [24:50] respondent that we will proceed as we dim fit your honor even if it's not an objection it's still [24:57] subject to the court's decision and discretion as to how to act on the um motion of the um prosecution [25:05] for this reason the chair calls a brief recess to consult um the senator um judges briefly says it's [25:12] called yes what is the pressure of um the lead prosecutor may i just make a counter manifestation brief [25:19] only the lady may proceed and as i understand um the lead the council for the responded also like to [25:28] make one i believe yes your honor yes um i cannot say ladies first but um the late the lead lady [25:37] prosecutor is recognized first for a counter manifestation your honor it is never the intention [25:45] of the prosecution of the prosecution to disregard the resources which were spent already by the [25:54] impeachment court in as far as this trial is concerned neither is it the intention of the prosecution [26:03] to cause unfairness or injustice on the part of the respondent as a matter of fact your honor this [26:12] decision was arrived after a careful study of what is best for the impeachment court for the public and [26:24] even for the respondent in this light your honor we wish to express our concern for the public who has [26:35] expressed their impatience considering that the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment are the [26:44] same allegations contained in the first impeachment back in 2024 during the 19th congress your honor our [26:55] beloved countrymen has all the right to know witness and be informed of the conclusion of all these [27:05] impeachment processes which started as early as 2024 second your honor we express our concern for the [27:15] honorable impeachment court considering the equally important legislative functions that they need to face [27:24] as well that includes the regular bills pending before the senate most importantly the much anticipated [27:35] budget hearing for general appropriations act of 2027 your honor ultimately your honor during the [27:45] the presentation of the presentation of evidence in chief by the prosecution the defense was likewise given [27:52] their opportunity to participate by way of their lengthy extensive engaging cross-examination where they were able [28:04] to present their pieces of documents as well to the public and if the desire of the defense is to be able to [28:16] share all the pieces of evidence that they have there are a lot of platforms which they may consider [28:23] your honor if the intention only is to share this publicly ultimately your honor the prosecution wishes [28:32] to put on record that this decision that this decision to withdraw drop the three of four articles [28:42] retaining only article two unexplained wealth is being done after careful consideration of all the interest [28:52] of the parties involved thank you your honor um attorney sila is recognized yes your honor just uh response to [29:02] the countermandation of the lead prosecutor um in the first place when the lead prosecutor mentioned that [29:12] if the respondent wants to be heard there are other platforms where we can show and present our evidence [29:23] i'm not sure if i heard that right um and to be frank it sounds um it is ridiculous to even suggest to the [29:33] respondent that hey after 38 days present namin ang lahat ng mga tao na sa tingin namin ay kaya magbigay ng [29:46] damage sa iyong reputasyon at kaya mag-identify ng mga dokumento na gusto namin marinig ng taong [29:53] bayan pero ang gagawin namin sa bandang huli ay we withdraw namin lahat ito at sasabihin na lamang namin [30:01] na ito ay para sa taong bayan para may kaunti namang kabilisan ang trial na ito but nonetheless may [30:12] may iba ka namang platform respondent that is the messaging that um the prosecution seems um to want to [30:24] impart before the public and before this honorable court it is unbelievable and to be honest it is [30:33] unacceptable platform for the respondent does the prosecution really want the respondent na puta lang ang [30:42] respondent sa facebook and where else matapos nilang sirain ang vicepresidente sa harap ng publiko at [31:03] ngayon ang sasabihin ay tutulungan ng taong bayan para mamadali ang proseso sa tingin ko hindi [31:13] natin kailangan ng higit pang patunay na something really really wrong is going on here now binanggit [31:24] ren ng lead prosecutor yung 2025 impeachment complaint that the prosecution allegedly wants to [31:33] help the public because you know they're interested because the impeachment complaints against the [31:38] vice president have been going on since 2025 in fact i will probably need to correct that because [31:44] the impeachment campaign against the vice president did not only begin in 2025 when the supreme court [31:50] junked and nullified void ab initio the impeachment complaints um filed or the articles of impeachment [31:59] that the 19th house of representative filed baka nakakalimutan natin na itong dahilan kung bakit may [32:07] decision ngayon na duterte versus hor kaya hindi ko rin alam kung saan nang gagaling yung sugestyon [32:12] na yan but uh let us be clear um whatever is the decision of the prosecution [32:23] on how to manage its case or how to secure its case and whether it thinks that um its case can [32:30] survive on one article alone at uh hindi na nila kailangan pa ng ebidensya or to offer evidence on articles [32:39] one the confidential funds and article four on grave threats uh at yung article three on bribery and [32:48] corrupt corruption that's their call that's their look out and kagaya ng isang batayang prinsipyo sa [32:59] lahat ng hukuman um the prosecution's case must stand or fall on its own so kung pahihinain [33:13] ng pag-withdraw ng tatlong articles ang kaso na ito ng prosecution that's theirs to birth to to bear [33:20] that's their burden that's not the defense burden and the defense will proceed as it deems fit lalo [33:30] na sa pagkakataong ito nag gumugol ang taong bayan ng tatlong put walong araw marahil marami sa [33:40] kanilang hindi pa pumapasok sa kanilang sa kanilang sa kanilang trabaho para masubay bayan ang [33:47] paglilitis na ito at hindi lang yun gumugol tayo ng government resources para sa trial na ito in fact um i would [33:58] even go as far as say that um the withdrawal should already be um one of the reasons why the articles of [34:06] impeachment entire articles of impeachment should be dismissed isang probaba kahapon narinig natin [34:18] tinanong pa yung daledge um forensic um financial expert at uh pingilit na so saan mo ba [34:32] uh may attribute to at ano binanggit niya confidential funds and now we hear today the prosecution say [34:40] that they're withdrawing the articles and allegations doon sa confidential funds so yes it goes into the [34:48] very right of the respondent to due process at kung ano man ang gagawin ng hukuman ito sa paglilitis [34:56] na ito hindi lang respondent ang apektado dito dahil ano man ang mangyari sa hukuman na ito ito ang [35:02] mensahe na ibinibigay natin sa taong bayan ito ang ehemplo at modelo na sinasabi natin sa mamamayang [35:09] Pilipino na pwede ito pwede itong gawin sa vicepresidente ninyo kaya pwede rin itong gawin sa kahit [35:18] kanino sa inyo kapag kayo ang naharap sa isang pagsasakdal hindi ko namin papayagan yan [35:29] um anything else before the court makes a um ruling on the um matter your honor please the [35:37] statement of the prosecution that the defense may consider other platforms is actually taken [35:45] from the regular practice of the respondent herself that instead of appearing in person [35:51] before the impeachment court she is stating a lot of things which have direct relation to the trial [36:00] during press con and it is from this light your honor that i suggested to the defense there are [36:08] other platforms which they may consider if the desire is only to publicly share the evidence in [36:17] support of the articles which are being trapped by the prosecution likewise your honor we take exception [36:25] to the statement of the defense that by withdrawing the case of the prosecution is being weakened we [36:34] absolutely uh oppose that statement your honor it has been repeatedly said that the prosecution has four [36:44] equally strong articles of impeachment and it is only because of the consideration of what we believe [36:52] is the best interest for all that we are retaining only one article nonetheless your honor without [36:59] sounding repetitive we are invoking the exclusive prerogative of the prosecution to decide [37:06] on matters of evidence to be presented and ultimately submitting to the impeachment court [37:12] on its exclusive power to try and decide impeachment cases thank you you know um yes um senator judge [37:20] allan yeah before the chair makes um yeah just i just want mr with the permission of attorney [37:28] just to clarify madam with your permission mr president and mr president officer when you say it's [37:35] the best interest of all can you clarify that are you talking about time that is one your honor [37:41] including the resources of the government and even the attention of the honorable senator judges [37:49] considering the equally important legislative matters which are pending before the senate not to [37:54] mention your honor the upcoming budget heating for 2027 is i say natin yon first of all time there's [38:03] no limit in the constitution we can finish this in january we can finish this in february we can take a [38:09] break tomorrow and focus on the budget it is our choice ko ako masusunod unahin natin yung budget [38:15] my super el nino hindi pa tapos yung flood control investigation and daming na tiwangwang na flood control [38:24] hindi nagspespend ang gobyerno we're in an economic crisis not only because of our own doing but [38:30] the whole world i mean all of us here all of us here legislators share all this concern marami [38:36] na nagsasabi na itong impeachment ay para sa mga politician we know that's not true we know it's an [38:42] accountability mechanism but we do know that the budget next to divine intervention and prayer is [38:48] the most important but i heard today we might even uh change our schedule na naman para mauna yung [38:55] impeachment so first of all time it's in the best interest of everyone that there's fairness [39:01] and we take our time there's no time limit who is saying that we have to finish this by [39:07] by november i want it finished but between finishing it tapos may unfairness and finishing [39:15] it na unahin to kaso sa budget mr presiding officer and mr senate president you know i'd like to put on [39:22] record i'm very uncomfortable with with that i think it will be a disservice to the filipino people [39:28] number two government resources it was the choice of the prosecution you could have started with the [39:34] ill gotten wealth and stop there but you chose to spend 38 days so kung baga sa suntukan sinuntok [39:43] nyo na yung defense then sasabihin nyo to save time wag na kayong gumanti and then sasabihin [39:50] yung platform ang gagamitin so this is my second question can the court issue supinas for their [39:58] witnesses to attend their facebook live or press cons with all due respect your honor that was in response to the [40:05] statement of the defense that the evidence of the prosecution have been seen by the public yes [40:10] yes ma'am i understand but that's the problem you put all of your witness here in court in a formal [40:18] process before the filipino people and this is an impeachable officer there are only a few impeachable [40:27] officers in our constitution and this is not purely a judicial process as we all know it's a political [40:33] process also meaning it's not enough dito na ma convict or ma acquit yung reputation ng tao yung [40:40] yung certainty ng tao na siya guilty o hindi so for example so that's my other question assuming we don't [40:48] give the defense the opportunity to present dun sa tatlong articles or dun sa dalawa nag present na is the [40:55] prosecution willing that we acquit her on those two uh articles will we will we categorize the dismissal [41:05] as an acquittal we believe your honor that by the withdrawal of the three articles by the [41:11] prosecution it means that this will no longer be part of the impeachment trial and therefore they are [41:17] no longer proper subject matter of the verdict to be rendered by the honorable impeachment so so we see [41:23] the problem that was created no problem with the corona precedent and with the article that you have not [41:30] that you will not pursue because you did not present evidence in this court every day using government [41:36] resources getting people's attention but for the two articles that you have already done your best and a [41:44] lot of people agree with you a lot of people disagree with you but to say sandali lang winidro namin [41:50] o matuwa na kayong defense wala na yan is that the kind of democracy the kind of legal system the kind of [42:01] justice that we want to give the the filipino people can you imagine the president so kung galit ako [42:07] sa koa and i i have barkada one-third of congress and i tell them don't worry i present lang natin yung [42:16] evidence and then at the last minute i withdraw na lang huwag na lang tayo mag formal offer and then [42:24] sa media na lang or whatever sinira na natin yung isang tao we already use government so i i don't know many of [42:31] the senator judges here i'm not at liberty to mention them but tama din naman sila if you you [42:36] withdrew everything then wala rin naman choice ang defense if they withdrew all four then we have to [42:43] stop this impeachment wala tayong pag-uusapan but but the reality is when you withdraw one or more but [42:50] leave one all the accusations still stand especially the evidence that you've already already filed so i i do [43:01] not know exactly how the presiding officer is going to rule but may i put on record the following [43:06] things so number one yeah we have to finish this impeachment process with the basic element of [43:12] fairness of really justice kahit anong mangyari dito acquit or uh uh convict may matutuwa may magagalit but [43:24] history will judge us whether or not yung elementary uh fairness and due process number two priorities are [43:32] priorities priority dapat yung budget kung masasabay natin bakit hindi in the last few months pinagsabay [43:41] natin session budget impeachment but if we're gonna stop just for the sake na matapos tayong [43:47] november we're gonna suffer the budget is not just passing it no then third uh mr president uh honorable [43:57] members of the prosecution whatever the judgment it has to be acceptable by the filipino people [44:02] and just because there's no food data just because there's no uh people power and just because [44:08] you know the rating some of us are doing well some of you are doing well uh just because last month [44:16] these guys are doing well this that doesn't mean na tama yung tinatanim natin sa mga kabataan ngayon [44:24] i just like you even during the duterte administration the aquino administration we have to do what has to be [44:32] done and we are in the moment and there are certain things that we all believe has to be done but then [44:38] 10 years later we look back so like the corona impeachment it is what it is but we look back [44:44] and also learn from that so i don't want to look back 10 years from now and say na just so that [44:48] matapos natin to ng november eto yung mga ginawa namin kasi ang dami ng issues eh kasama yung threshold [44:56] and dami na dadagdagan pa ba natin to by that i am sorry mr senate president for taking this time but [45:04] it was a surprise to us kasi we more or less knew that you're gonna withdraw yung sa bribery ma'am [45:09] but uh to withdraw the the other two you know it's something that we have to all take in [45:14] and at this point hindi naman nag nag uh po object yung defense but at this point to say to the defense [45:20] you can or cannot do this medyo ma i just have to put on right mabigat po talaga thank you ma'am [45:27] thank you um senator jajalan um um with your permission senator jajalan before i recognize um [45:35] attorney sheila senator jajalan you mentioned something earlier about dropping three keeping one [45:41] um that's why it's unfair because the respondent cannot present evidence anymore i agree with the [45:49] presiding officer that uh the bribery case falls under the corona president yes but you didn't [45:58] present the witnesses and the documentary evidence here so when you withdraw it i i don't think we have [46:05] any obligation to ask the defense or to prohibit them from presenting defense right but for the two [46:11] other articles that we've spent the last 38 days presenting the evidence here so it's not only the [46:18] legal consequences meaning acquitted or or convicted but also the reputation of the vice president and [46:26] her her right to a fair hearing a fair trial by being able to present their own evidence so in theory [46:34] in theory because this has happened in the united states in several occasions given our research on the [46:40] matter what if the prosecution decides not this one clearly they're not um decides to drop all and [46:50] completely after presenting evidence completely withdraw all yeah that's where i agree with you and i just [46:57] didn't name you a while that's why i when you drop all no problem because basically she's acquitted and [47:05] basically both sides will go to we will go to the public opinion but the prosecution will lose [47:11] because i said but mo pa inimpeach ko either drop mo all now this is after they presented yes yes but if you [47:18] drop all that means suddenly you're not interested in prosecuting anymore that means there's something [47:24] happened that made you believe that now that person shouldn't be impeached but when you leave even one [47:32] so whether that's ten you withdrew nine that's seven you withdrew six you leave one then you're still [47:38] telling the public she's still not uh she should not spend a day more in office and should be impeached so i [47:46] agree with you mr presiding officer and with our colleagues here now ano pang iprepresent ng defense [47:51] kung hindi naman present yung formal so hindi naman siya mako convict yes in terms of the legal [47:58] consequences of having a verdict of conviction but that's not our fault that's the fault of the [48:03] prosecution ayaw nila i-offer it kung in-offer nila ngayon tapos na tayo today so but it cannot also be the [48:10] fault of the prosecution because you presented everything then stopped short and then withdrew [48:16] it's unfair to the prosecution and to the impeachable officer now to say na bahala na si batman [48:21] bahala na kayo sa press con bahala na kayo sa social media mag defense that's why i asked the question [48:27] will we will we issue a subpoena for example if they want a hostile witness uh not aga sek halimbawa or taga [48:34] uh whatever amla uh mag appear sa facebook will we issue a subpoena hindi pupunta ba yung mga [48:42] am taga amla uh amlc kung kung sila'y magpre press con hindi mr president so that's the problem [48:49] absolutely there's a problem i agree with you kung lahat tinuloy o lahat winidraw wala tayong problema [48:55] pero pagka and kung yung lahat ng winidraw hindi ka pa nag present ng evidence wala din tayong [49:01] problema pero ang problema natin nag present ka na eh until hanggang dulo eh then you're gonna [49:06] insist that malakas pa rin yung case nyo on all four cases kasi if they're not presenting now and [49:12] they say na no no we admit she'll be acquitted in the two then then maybe i would ask the the defense [49:19] or would it be acceptable if they admit na acquitted sya dun sa dalawa why present pa kung [49:25] acquitted pero kung sasabihin hindi lang namin i-prepresent pero malakas ang case namin pero [49:31] kayo hindi kayo pwede mag present ng evidence hindi po talaga mag square mr presiding officer [49:38] noted attorney sheila and then the court will um make some statements um before the ruling yes your [49:47] honor thank you uh just very quick uh responses to what the lead prosecutor said she mentioned that um [49:55] um the comment on the platforms or giving the respondent um the ability to present before any [50:02] platform she chooses um whatever it is that she wants ventilated before the public uh was taken out of [50:09] context or this was in response because she believes that the respondent had um fully done that um [50:17] previously we will no longer dignify that but i think we can all agree everyone in this room can all [50:22] agree that that is a very strange thing to hear from a public officer in a formal trial suggesting to [50:31] the very person that they had indicted and they had held to court to we will just stop we will just [50:39] withdraw after presenting everything that we think we have against you and then just go to the platform [50:46] i think that's very strange now if we go to section 1 article 11 and again duterte versus hor the [50:53] accountability mechanism does not only apply to the respondent the court has also already said and we [51:02] don't even need to look far we just need to read section 1 article 11 the accountability or the requirement [51:12] of being accountable is demanded of every public officer including the members of this honorable court [51:22] and the public officers who are also members of the prosecution panel now second before any suggestion [51:33] or um any suggestion that um this is because the impeachment proceeding is sui generis we'd like to [51:43] just say that being sui simply means that this proceeding or an impeachment proceeding is unique [51:51] it is a class of its own but it is not the free pass to entirely disregard the constitution [52:01] the law and the rules in fact um we have a case gas corporation versus in shong this is a 1979 case and [52:09] i don't think anyone here will um disagree uh in that the court said that the court already emphasized [52:18] that while the standards of due process allows um a certain latitude the element of fairness should not [52:26] be ignored here if uh by the withdrawal of um these three articles or two additional articles from the [52:36] prosecution is seen to have uh some effect on how the defense will decide or how the respondent will [52:44] decide to proceed with its presentation of um or evidence in chief then the prosecution is mistaken again [52:52] and for the record we will proceed as we dim fit now any objections that the prosecution will have on [52:59] relevance materiality competence they should make that at the appropriate time in accordance with [53:04] um section 35 of rule 132 your honor and uh finally the just a quick reply to uh what the lead prosecutor [53:16] said about time that they don't want to waste anymore the time of this court and the public but they already [53:21] did in fact they spent 38 days presenting all the evidence i think it's too late to claim now that they [53:34] do not want to waste the time of this court and the public because they're done with the presentation [53:41] of their evidence thank you your honor that's all um before the court makes a ruling the court recalls [53:52] the point raised by senator judge bam aquino on july 15 when he proposed the tackling of the articles of [54:04] impeachment alternately meaning to say article one prosecution and then defense article two prosecution [54:14] and then defense um given this current issue and quandary and situation we find ourselves in um [54:28] i hope future impeachment courts will look at that um particular situation and decision and consider [54:34] another um another um application of the rule because at that time um after hearing the parties both um i [54:42] believe um after hearing the parties the presiding officer said that is not in accordance with the rules [54:49] that's not how things are done perhaps in the future that's one of the practical applications of this [54:59] being a sui generis court um to avoid similar situations such as this one because um the presiding officer [55:07] sees the point of um senator judge allen as well as the point raised by the respective councils for [55:14] the parties but are nevertheless constrained to make a ruling based on precedent and based on um [55:23] available jurisprudence and basis um on the matter but again i hope future impeachment courts the young [55:30] members of the senate um senator judge panglinan would consider this matter at a future time yes um what is [55:41] your pleasure sir yes before the court's ruling yes just to i recall i remember the uh uh point raised by [55:49] senator ban makino then uh as early as july 15 and if i understand if i recall correctly the the presiding [55:58] officer ruled that uh that is an option provided both respondent uh councils for the prosecution and the [56:08] respondent would agree uh that uh that uh we would be open to allowing a amendment or at least an adjustment [56:19] to the procedure provided both uh councils for the respondent and councils and the prosecutors would agree [56:28] unfortunately uh there was no agreement and therefore we had to proceed as we have proceeded just for the [56:35] record again hindsight is always 2020 and we have the benefit of history to learn from it and not keep [56:41] on reinventing the wheel so again for the record i hope the future impeachment course will take note of [56:47] this um and hopefully learn from it the court will now make an extended ruling um for the past 39 days [56:55] the court has been preparing extensively with the help of several lawyers as well as the clerk of court [57:00] to make sure that um we know the same if not more than um each party or both parties combined in the [57:10] hope that we can dispatch with any issue that will be brought upon before this court um so that we come [57:16] up with various possibilities um in the course of the 39 day trial um we have seen that sometimes come to [57:24] pass that we meet them sometimes we are short of them um nevertheless the court is constrained to make a [57:30] ruling given that it's last our last day before we go and recess and given that the prosecution has rested [57:35] allow the court to read for the records for the record rather its extended ruling on the matter [57:44] the court notes the prosecution's manifestation that it has completed the presentation of its evidence in chief [57:50] and is resting its case in resting its case the prosecution manifested that that article 3 [57:56] was withdrawn prior to the is withdrawn rather prior to the presentation of evidence hence no further [58:03] evidence shall be presented in support thereof on the basis of its manifestation filed last october 6. [58:11] furthermore the prosecution formally withdraws as of today articles one and four as well following the [58:20] conclusion of its evidence in chief and confirms that it shall not rely upon any previously presented [58:27] evidence to sustain any of the aforementioned articles for the record the articles being withdrawn by the [58:33] prosecution are as follows article 1 misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds article 3 [58:42] bribery and corruption with the department of education article 4 assassination plot grave threats [58:49] and inciting to sedition against the government the prosecution having rested its case it is now the [58:55] turn of the respondent to present her evidence in chief subject to the court's resolution of the [59:01] prosecution's formal offer of documentary and object evidence and in accordance with the fixed schedule [59:06] here under however before the defense is required to proceed the court must act upon the prosecution's [59:12] manifestation of withdrawal article 11 section 3 6 of the 1987 constitution vests in the senate the sole power [59:22] to try and decide all cases of impeachment as such once the articles of impeachment have been transmitted and [59:29] the senate has acquired jurisdiction over them their disposition cannot rest solely upon the unilateral [59:36] discretion of the prosecution by suppletory analogy crespo versus mogul gr number 533373 teaches that once a [59:48] charge has been formally lodged before a competent tribunal any disposition of the case as it's as such as [59:56] such as its dismissal or conviction or acquittal of the accused rests on the sound discretion of the court [1:00:03] this is also consistent with the u.s impeachment cases of judge george w english and judge samuel b kent [1:00:12] accordingly the prosecution's manifestation does not by itself extinguish articles one three and four [1:00:19] at most it presents a request for approval for the approval of this court in acting upon the request [1:00:27] the court exercises its independent constitutional authority promotes judicial economy and avoids [1:00:34] requiring the respondent to extend time and resources defending charges that the prosecution has formally [1:00:40] abandoned abandoned consistent with the respondent and the people's right to speed the disposition of [1:00:45] cases under article 3 section 16 of the constitution given the foregoing the court accepts and confirms the [1:00:54] prosecution's manifestation articles one three and four from this point forward are deemed withdrawn subject [1:01:01] to the following rulings and orders that this court hereby issues as follows number one articles one and four [1:01:11] are deemed withdrawn with prejudice as against the respondent congress must never be light-handed or [1:01:18] nonchalant in initiating and prosecuting articles of impeachment impeachment is not a charge that may [1:01:25] simply be filed pursued through the presentation of evidence and thereafter withdrawn without the [1:01:32] respondent's consent it is it is a grave constitutional process that affects not only the respondent but also the [1:01:40] stability of government the orderly conduct the orderly conduct of public affairs public confidence in [1:01:44] constitutional institutions and the nation as a whole not to mention the expenses associated and [1:01:51] related to this process it likewise demands substantial time and resources from the impeachment court the [1:01:57] parties and the public as well here the prosecution has been afforded the opportunity to present its case and [1:02:04] has consumed the court's time and institutional resources in doing so having elected to withdraw the articles after [1:02:11] resting its case the prosecution must therefore accept the legal consequences of that withdrawal the house of [1:02:19] representatives may not treat the impeachment process as a mere opportunity to file withdraw and subsequently [1:02:26] revive substantially the same constitutional accusations at will as explained in bala areas versus espanto [1:02:35] g r number 24 7 8 44 an action by the court with prejudice is treated as an adjudication on the [1:02:42] marriage that finally disposes of the controversy and bars a later action involving the same cause therefore [1:02:51] the effect of a withdrawal with prejudice means that articles one and four may not be revived in this trial [1:02:59] refiled reprosecuted or transmitted anew against the same respondent during the same term [1:03:07] and in this 20th congress when founded upon the same allegations the same acts or omissions the same ultimate [1:03:15] factual transaction and the same constitutional accusation regardless of any change in the wording caption theory [1:03:23] arrangement of specifications or composition of the prosecutorial panel the test that the court will apply is [1:03:30] substantive and not merely verbal despite changes in phrasing or legal characterization a later article is [1:03:38] the same if it seeks the removal of the respondent during the same term for the same operative conduct and [1:03:45] ultimate constitutional charge during this 20th congress this bar applies only to impeachment as a process of [1:03:53] constitutional removal however it does not grant immunity nor does it constitute double jeopardy against [1:04:00] the prosecution for any underlying conduct it does not bar criminal civil administrative electoral disciplinary [1:04:08] or other professional proceedings in accordance with law each of which is governed by its own [1:04:14] jurisdictional substantive evidentiary and procedural rules this distinction is consistent with the strada v [1:04:22] desierto gr number 1467 10-15 where the court rejected an attempt to use an aborted impeachment proceeding as a bar [1:04:32] to subsequent criminal prosecution number two article three however as stated above is deemed withdrawn without [1:04:41] prejudice as against the respondent article three stands on a dip on a materially different procedural footing the [1:04:48] prosecution did not present or reduce evidence under this article no evidentiary case under article three was [1:04:55] submitted to this court upon which a finding or verdict could have been sustained and the respondent was never [1:05:01] placed in the position of having to answer a completed evidentiary presentation under that article the distinction is [1:05:08] deliberate articles one and four were brought through a completed prosecutorial evidentiary presentation before being withdrawn [1:05:15] withdrawn article three was never was was withdrawn before the prosecution presented evidence [1:05:23] capable of sustaining a finding against the respondent the court therefore accords to articles one and four [1:05:29] finality for the respondents present term as vice president while limiting the procedural effect of the withdrawal of article three [1:05:37] to this trial alone provided however that article three may not be revived in this trial until its conclusion [1:05:46] number three articles one three and four shall not be submitted for a vote or verdict by this court anymore [1:05:55] as there is no longer any charge under articles one three and four for adjudication in this trial [1:06:02] those articles shall not be submitted to the members of the court for a vote or for a verdict of conviction or acquittal [1:06:10] this treatment follows the precedent established during the 2012 impeachment trial of chief justice renato corona [1:06:16] when the prosecution abandoned five articles the defense was not required to present evidence upon them [1:06:22] and the withdrawn articles were not submitted to the senator judges for a vote on march 12 2012 acting upon [1:06:28] the defense's motion to dismiss the prosecution's manifestation of withdrawal the presiding officer stated quote [1:06:37] regarding the motion of the defense to formally dismiss articles one four five six and eight of the articles of [1:06:43] impeachment the impeachment the impeachment court in a caucus decided not to entertain and act on the [1:06:49] motion to dismiss with a clear understanding however that no evidence from both prosecution and defense [1:06:55] panels will be received by the impeachment court on articles one four five six and eight the presiding [1:07:02] officer also then stated the corresponding consequence of that ruling furthermore the members of the [1:07:08] impeachment court will not render any vote on those articles and no verdict of the impeachment [1:07:14] court will be rendered on the same accordingly articles one three and four shall no longer form [1:07:22] part of the articles of impeachment to be decided in this trial and shall not be submitted to the members of the [1:07:29] court for a vote or for a verdict of conviction or acquittal number four respondent need not present evidence in [1:07:39] defense of articles one three and four because articles one three and four will no longer be submitted for a vote or verdict [1:07:47] verdict the respondent need not present evidence in chief to controvert or defend against these withdrawn articles [1:07:54] there is consequently no surviving charge under articles one three and four requiring an evidentiary defense [1:08:02] requiring defense witnesses documents or exhibits solely to answer an article that will not be adjudicated upon by [1:08:08] this court would necessarily impose burden and litigation risk without the remaining adjudicative purpose [1:08:17] this conclusion is consistent with the court's authority to control and manage the proceedings before it [1:08:23] rule five of the rules of procedure and impeachment trials authorizes the court to issue orders necessary [1:08:28] to carry the proceedings into effect and essential to the ends of justice while rule six permits the [1:08:34] supplicatory application of the rules of court specifically rule one three five section five g which [1:08:41] recognizes the inherent power of the court to control its processes and orders so that they may conform [1:08:46] with law and justice santa in santa lucia realty versus city of pasig gr number 16 68 38 the supreme court [1:08:57] recognized the inherent authority of a tribunal to control the disposition of matters on its docket with the economy of [1:09:04] time and effort for the court counsel and litigants in consideration consistent with that authority and with [1:09:11] the rule that evidence must be relevant to the fact in issue under rule one to eight no useful adjudicative [1:09:16] purpose would be served by receiving evidence directed solely against charges that have already been withdrawn [1:09:24] the respondents presentation of evidence in chief shall therefore address article two the respondent may [1:09:30] however identify adopt and rely upon evidence already adduced and forming part of the official record [1:09:38] without needlessly presenting the same evidence and new provided that each type item is relevant [1:09:44] and otherwise admissible with respect to article two number five the subjudicial rules shall no longer cover [1:09:52] the withdrawn articles namely article one three and four rule eighteen requires the parties their counsel and [1:10:01] witnesses and witnesses and other persons covered by the rules to refrain from making public comments or [1:10:05] disclosures concerning the merits of matters pending adjudication before the impeachment court upon the [1:10:11] effectivity of this order the separate merits of articles one three and four are no longer pending for [1:10:18] adjudication accordingly the prosecutors the respondent their respective councils and witnesses may publicly address [1:10:25] explain and respond to any matter contained in those withdrawn articles in particular the respondent given that [1:10:33] she will no longer have an opportunity or need to defend against those articles through the presentation of [1:10:39] evidence before the court may therefore answer them present her account defend her conduct reputation in the [1:10:47] course of public discourse this freedom extends only to articles one three and four however and does not authorize [1:10:55] the covered parties by rule eighteen to make any public comment or disclosure concerning the merits of the [1:11:01] retained article two which remains pending before this court the freedom to discuss the allegations in the [1:11:08] withdrawn articles however does not authorize the unrestricted disclosure or dissemination of evidence presented in [1:11:14] connection with them withdrawal does not declassify evidence remove an existing seal or protective order wave any [1:11:23] privilege or extinguished duties arising from privacy statutory secrecy witness protection legal ethics confidentiality [1:11:30] undertakings or the sensitive character of any material evidence subject to any such protection shall be copied shall not be [1:11:39] copied reproduced or photographed circulated published or uploaded or transmitted except as may be expressly permitted by law [1:11:47] public statements concerning the withdrawn articles must therefore be made without disclosing protected evidence if [1:11:55] any there be in accordance with existing laws and regulations number six preservation public access and control [1:12:03] distribution of official record all pleadings manifestations motions transcripts stenographic notes marked documents admitted [1:12:10] exhibits excluded or rejected exhibits excluded or rejected exhibits formal offers objections resolutions [1:12:17] and rulings relating to articles one three and four shall remain in the official rolio and in the custody of the [1:12:24] court no such material shall be removed or expunged merely because the article to which it originally related [1:12:31] has been withdrawn once a document or exhibit has been received submitted or otherwise made part of the proceedings [1:12:39] its preservation serves the integrity completeness transparency and institutional accountability of the official [1:12:46] record consistent with rule one three six section seven of the rules of court the office of the court [1:12:53] administrator verse and the office of the court administrator versus attorney toledo am number p one three three one two four [1:13:01] retention in the rolio does not by itself confer admissibility probate probative value or evidentiary weight the court may [1:13:10] segregate seal redact restrict or otherwise place material under controlled access without removing it from [1:13:17] the official record expansion disposal or destruction shall require a specific lawful order and compliance with [1:13:24] applicable records management rules preservation of the complete official record is distinct from unrestricted public [1:13:32] dissemination article 3 section 7 and article 2 section 28 of the constitution supports meaningful public access to [1:13:40] these proceedings subject to limitations and reasonable conditions prescribed by law accordingly the court may [1:13:47] restrict the online publication of unredacted exhibits containing privileged private bank security sensitive [1:13:55] or otherwise legally protected information consistent with republic act numbers 101 73 1405 and 64 26 as recognized in [1:14:06] um rare request for radio tv coverage of the trial in the sandigan bayan of joseph estrada am 014-03 sc the public [1:14:18] character of a proceeding does not prevent the tribunal from regulating the manner by which its records are [1:14:24] transmitted and or disseminated therefore before any attachment is published uploaded or otherwise made publicly acceptable [1:14:33] accessible the clerk of court shall classified as a public b public in redacted form c available only through [1:14:44] controlled or supervised access d sealed or c or e rather subject to a separate protective order the inclusion of [1:14:54] attachment in a formal offer or its retention in the rollo shall not by itself require its publication online the [1:15:02] classification assigned by the clerk of court together with any applicable law privilege sealing order or [1:15:07] protective order shall govern the manner and extent of public access complete and unredacted official copy [1:15:16] shall remain available to the members of the impeachment court and to the parties except where the court has [1:15:21] sustained a privilege or imposed another lawful limitation no public access restriction shall impair the [1:15:28] respondent's right to know examine and answer and answer the evidence offered against her to implement [1:15:35] these access classifications the clerk of court shall establish a procedure for public requests supervised [1:15:41] inspection the issuance of redacted copies and the prompt presentation of challenges to an access restriction [1:15:48] every restriction shall identify its legal basis scope responsible custodian and duration the original physical and [1:15:56] digital files including their metadata chain of custody information exhibit markings classification history and access logs [1:16:04] shall be preserved as part of the complete and authoritative record of this trial the non-uploading or restricted [1:16:12] publication of any material is solely an access control measure and shall not constitute its expunction [1:16:18] destruction concealment or exclusion from the evidence when confidential or sensitive attachments to a formal offer of [1:16:27] evidence evidence or reproduced or distributed for official use every copy furnished to a senator judge or party a [1:16:34] prosecutor respondent clerk of court or other authorized recipient shall bear a unique recipient specific watermark the watermark [1:16:43] shall as far as practicable identify the authorized recipient the individual copy number the date and time of issuance in the [1:16:51] documents access classification the clerk of court shall maintain a distribution register [1:16:56] register recording each copy issued the recipient to whom it was issued and the person responsible for its custody [1:17:03] no recipient shall remove obscure alter or defeat the watermark or reproduce transmit or permit the unauthorized [1:17:10] reproduction or dissemination of the protected material recipient specific watermarking is an accountability and traceability measure [1:17:18] it does not alter the material's evidentiary character authenticity admissibility or inclusion in the official roleo [1:17:25] number seven submission of the prosecution's written formal offer in its limited publication in the senate website [1:17:34] with the foregoing the prosecution shall make its written formal offer of documentary and object evidence in support [1:17:41] in support of article 2 within 10 days from today or until october 23 accordingly [1:17:48] the respondent shall have 10 days from receipt of the formal offer whenever that date should be [1:17:55] to filed and furnish the prosecution with their comments and objections [1:17:59] the court shall resolve the formal offer and the respondent's objection thereto accordingly [1:18:07] the written formal offer of evidence exhibit index and rulings of the court may be uploaded to the senate website [1:18:11] subject to all the aspects and respects to the classifications reduction [1:18:17] confidentiality access control [1:18:19] protective measures prescribed [1:18:21] under number six as stated earlier [1:18:23] 6 as stated earlier the inclusion of any document exhibit or other attachment in the formal offer of evidence or its retention in the roleo [1:18:33] shall not by itself authorize or require its publication or upload to the senate website [1:18:38] no attachment shall be uploaded unless it has first been reviewed and classified by the clerk of court [1:18:44] pursuant to number six in this order and its publication is permitted and permitted under the assigned classification [1:18:53] an applicable law privilege sealing order or protective order [1:18:57] where publication is permitted only in redacted form [1:19:02] only the duly redacted version shall be uploaded materials classified for controlled or supervised [1:19:09] taxes sealed materials and materials subject to a separate protective order [1:19:13] shall not be uploaded except upon further order of the court [1:19:20] number eight schedule of trial dates [1:19:23] as an update on the progress of these proceedings [1:19:26] today marks the court's 39th actual trial date covering 47 trial days [1:19:35] if you count the whole day trial as two trial dates [1:19:40] the court is presently ahead of its projected trial schedule under the pre-trial order [1:19:47] given the schedule proposed for the presentation of prosecution evidence [1:19:51] by 20 trial days as of today because of our whole day hearings however due to the scheduled recess of about [1:20:01] three weeks we will only be ahead by three trial dates by november 9 and considering the budget hearings [1:20:10] the asian related break and other holidays eight trial eight available trial dates will be lost in the month [1:20:17] of november in order to catch up on these lost trial dates the schedule for trial dates for november [1:20:27] shall be therefore as follows november 9 beginning at 10 a.m the court will convene the senate session in [1:20:35] the afternoon and resume trial again whenever we are done similar to what we did last october 8 on november 10 [1:20:44] it will be for the whole day from 10 a.m to 6 6 30 p.m on november 11 we shall begin at 10 and [1:20:53] the senate may convene as a legislative body again in the afternoon as the case may be or as may be required [1:20:59] by the plenary session of the senate november 12 and 13 will be for the whole day from 10 to 6 6 30 p.m [1:21:08] november 19 and 20 will be for the whole day from 10 to 6 30 p.m on november 23 it shall only be from [1:21:16] 10 a.m to 2 p.m the following week is november 30 a monday which is a holiday we shall decide on the [1:21:23] schedule in december as the case may be hopefully at the beginning of november to give the parties adequate [1:21:31] time number nine the respondents shall have 26 calendar days from today within which to prepare [1:21:40] for her presentation of evidence in chief which shall commence on november 9 20 26 without prejudice of [1:21:47] course to any remedies motions or manifestations the respondent may make in the course of the recess [1:21:54] and on this date of the trial finally number 10 the respondent is reminded of the five-day notice um rule [1:22:05] um in uh in uh in uh complying with the trial dates as earlier stated in order to afford the opposing [1:22:16] party time to prepare especially given the fact that um the pretrial order does not contain the list of [1:22:25] witnesses the respondent has for article um two um which therefore makes the um five-day rule [1:22:33] relevant in regard to these proceedings also after the formal offer of evidence and when they submit [1:22:43] their written list of witnesses for the trial on november 9 onwards the court would also expect the [1:22:51] respondent um to give uh an estimate of the number of witnesses it shall have and the trial dates it shall [1:23:00] require in order to present its evidence again to recall the pre-trial order contains a generic um [1:23:08] statement of trial dates 62 or 61 if i remember for the prosecution divided by article but in the case of [1:23:15] the respondent they mentioned 30 31 days for the total um presentation of evidence in chief of the respondent [1:23:24] without dividing it up or article so hopefully by the time the respondent submits its um request for the [1:23:31] issuance of sabina or witness to be presented they shall also inform the court how many trial dates they [1:23:37] need um for us to be able to find dates in december if it is necessary and as the case may be in the [1:23:44] meantime the court will simply set trial dates for november as we did in september when we set the trial dates [1:23:52] for october the same is going to be true for december we shall set the trial dates for december [1:23:57] as the case may be and as may be necessary hopefully in early um november for the information and [1:24:03] consideration of the parties forgive me for the extended ruling so ordered attorney sheila is [1:24:10] recognized what is your pleasure again good afternoon your honor um we have heard the extended [1:24:14] ruling of um the presiding officer today in respect of the withdrawal of three articles of uh impeachment [1:24:22] that the prosecution made today um just a few manifestations subject to and without prejudice [1:24:30] to whatever um legal remedy that the respondent would decide to take the lady may proceed uh number [1:24:38] one your honor um we will ask for a copy today of the extended ruling so that we can also discuss it [1:24:43] with the vice president with the respondent and the second uh this court had given schedule of the [1:24:51] resumption of hearings starting from november 9 10 11 um onwards but i presume that this is of course [1:24:59] without prejudice to the ruling of um this court on the offer of um the prosecution because if this um [1:25:09] court decides that um every evidence submitted or offered by the prosecution even on the remaining article [1:25:17] of article of article um two then um the only necessary course is to dismiss the entire case and the [1:25:27] articles of impeachment and so i would take that the november 9 schedule the assumption of hearing is not [1:25:35] really to presume that um the prosecution or persecution of the respondent will continue on set dates [1:25:43] um please um and just for the record your honor if i may interrupt no i i understand kindly allow her to [1:25:51] finish um i understand that your honor but um i have um in addition to that um in fact um the term i [1:25:58] i know they will object to the term persecution but um this is on record and this is part of the records of [1:26:05] the this case in fact um this is under paragraphs 140 and 141 of the answer of the respondent says here [1:26:14] those supposed records of the cjgpa hearing certainly do not contain reliable findings of liabilities on [1:26:20] the part of the respondent since at the time of those hearings and to date the supposed co-observations [1:26:27] have not yet attained finality and the subsequent paragraph 141 reads as those hearings were in every [1:26:36] sense a public display of modern day persecution and um wielding of power by those who control those [1:26:44] hearings a number of those are still the same members of the congress who sat in proceedings this [1:26:48] year before the committee on justice is part of the affirmative allegations in the answer of the [1:26:54] the respondent now um i say that um as a formal reaction and um uh my forgive me your honor if i will [1:27:06] have to say that um as of this point the defense would like to register a strong objection to [1:27:12] um the ruling in so far uh to the extended ruling in so far as it now allows what seems to be uh an [1:27:22] unregulated um and unbridled exercise of uh statements uh that will or that can be made before the public [1:27:38] before the different fora platforms um to borrow the words of the lead prosecutor um in in respect of [1:27:46] the relaxation of rule 18 uh we would like to i'm sure that the court understands this the essence of the [1:27:54] subjudicial rule really is not of uh not limited to the practical value of regulating the proceeding it [1:28:04] actually goes into the integrity or maintaining the integrity of the proceedings that's why [1:28:09] parties are generally prohibited from um speaking about the merits of the case [1:28:15] before third parties before the media and outside the court because it runs or every statement runs [1:28:22] the risk of painting the integrity of the proceedings now i know and we understand that um the justification [1:28:30] for not even a relaxation but uh what seems to be an entire abandonment of rule 18 [1:28:37] uh relating to the prosecution's allegations and articles uh one confidential funds and article four [1:28:49] on grave threats and article three uh bribery uh that seems to us we don't know and um i find it [1:28:58] difficult to understand how and how that uh ruling or abandonment of rule 18 even as this trial is still [1:29:06] ongoing and uh while parties are still litigating this case on the remaining article will contribute [1:29:13] to maintaining the integrity of these proceedings if at all we now have what seems to be a what is this [1:29:21] called uh in ordinary parlance and ffa a free for all a free for all type of um accusing the respondent [1:29:38] anywhere and everywhere so we actually object to the abandonment of rule 18 if we are to be true and [1:29:48] faithful to the rational and wisdom of the subjudicial rule that not only permeates this court it permeates the [1:29:56] entire judicial system because it is needed to maintain the integrity of the proceedings there should [1:30:04] not be any single instance or occasion that this should be abandoned in the middle of trial and right [1:30:10] before or before the defense or respondent presents her case and possibly the the gravest consequence that [1:30:23] this now uh uh causes uh to this entire proceeding is this the abandonment of rule 18 and on the rule [1:30:33] against uh subjudice statements or out of court statements of the parties um complainants and etc uh comes [1:30:43] at the heel of the prosecution's um withdrawal of the articles of impeachment in which they had already [1:30:51] presented and completed their presentation and now the abandonment of rule 18 binds both parties both the [1:31:02] prosecution and um the respondent now uh i know that the the the court will say that well uh the [1:31:12] respondent's given the equal opportunity to do as she pleases um with respect to the allegations she can [1:31:18] say a lot of things she can you know use all the platforms in the words of the lead prosecutor uh to [1:31:26] avail of these platforms to present her evidence um through these platforms uh i'm sorry your honor [1:31:34] when the vice president was held to this formal proceeding and in this court and the honorable members [1:31:41] of this court took their um oath uh senator's judges uh the respondent really envisioned a fair and [1:31:48] impartial um proceeding geared only to one and one one and one and and that is what justice now whatever [1:31:57] justice means for both sides or for each one of us a lot of mga nakikinig sa atin dito [1:32:02] uh batay sa ating kanya kanyang paniniwala sa tingin ko walang uh pag-iimbot na [1:32:08] dapat natin tanggapin ang lahat ng prosesong dapat na ah pagdadaanan ng pagdilitis na ito ay [1:32:14] dapat na ayon din sa batas at sa garantiya na binibigay ng ating konstitusyon now um we've heard also [1:32:22] over and over again uh expediency or the practicality of the proceedings that's why it would seem to me [1:32:30] that's why we're asking for a copy of the extended ruling that may clarify um your honor if by the [1:32:39] extended ruling is the respondent now explicitly being prohibited from um presenting um any evidence [1:32:46] without confirming um to this court whether or not um we intend to present anything um just so [1:32:54] is the respondent now explicitly being prohibited from presenting or from making decisions [1:33:02] with respect to her presentation of um her evidence in chief by that extended ruling [1:33:09] the effect of counsel of that ruling is that since um articles one three and four will not be [1:33:19] adjudicated upon by the court nor put to a vote um it does not prevent the respondent from making [1:33:28] concomitant manifestations in regard to it but with respect to presenting evidence on the withdrawn [1:33:36] articles um based on the president and the corona ruling and the and the citations um quoted by the [1:33:44] court um it would serve no useful what purpose would it serve counsel can you kindly um enlighten the [1:33:52] members of the court so that we would also see on the respondents point yes your honor i have here the [1:33:58] corona president there's a big big difference between the corona being cited as president and to justify [1:34:05] whatever prohibition that this court will apply on the respondent on how to proceed with the presentation [1:34:11] of her case in chief on february 28 2012 the lead prosecutor tupas manifested that they will no longer [1:34:17] be presenting evidence for five of the eight articles of impeachment and later on it was clarified to be a [1:34:23] withdrawal of those five articles the prosecution asked for time to file their foe or formal offer of [1:34:29] evidence and the following day the prosecution requested for um some days to file their foe which [1:34:35] was actually granted by the court and then the defense moved for and was granted five days to [1:34:40] file their comment upon receipt of the foe now um unlike in this case in the corona trial the withdrawal [1:34:48] was done before the prosecution presented any evidence on those articles here your honor there is no doubt [1:34:59] the prosecution took their time and completed their presentation and now what we now want to impart to the [1:35:07] public is this is her vice president she was tried held to the court on alleged indictment charges upon [1:35:16] articles for articles of impeachment and the prosecution consisting of the public and prosecutors from the present [1:35:25] um uh congress of the house of representatives and uh with the addition of the panel for prosecution [1:35:33] consisting of private prosecutors they did all this they presented their evidence the court allowed them [1:35:40] um time gave them opportunity gave them platform but now since they withdrew your vice president can no longer [1:35:50] speak or defend herself from those allegations um may we just put on record that um just for the record [1:35:57] your honor we find that not only a bit unfair i would say it's completely unfair but um whether this is [1:36:07] something that the court will again consider on its own uh or ruminate on it um perhaps uh today or um in the [1:36:16] in the subsequent days uh or while the formal offer and the comment of the responded to the uh to that formal [1:36:23] offer is pending um i think we we all have to ask ourselves are we what is it that uh we all want from [1:36:34] these proceedings fairness impartiality every day we come here we pray nananalangin tayo sa poong may kapal [1:36:49] at sa lumikha sa ating lahat bikyan nyo kami ng lahat ng lakas ng loob at tibay ng didib dib dib dib talas ng isip tatag [1:37:04] ng loob ng loob para tuktin ang aming tungkulin bilang mga public servants bilang mga hukom bilang mga [1:37:16] partido bilang mga abogado bigyan nyo kami ng panahon para sundin kung ano ang sinasabi sa ilalim ng ating [1:37:26] saligang batas every day we do that ang sa amin lang ho yun hubang extended ruling ngayon um really allows or gives [1:37:39] that kind of fairness to the vice president and the respondent at hindi lang yun ano this is not a [1:37:48] this is not a selfish ask uh katulad na sinabi ko kanina whatever it is that we will do here this [1:37:54] will set an example for everyone when someone is held to the court his standard or her standard [1:38:03] will be what he or she had seen here your honor now just um i'll be winding up [1:38:14] uh honorable luistro the defense has to be raising a reconsideration [1:38:20] um it's a manifestation council it's a manifestation it's a manifestation which the court intends to um [1:38:26] objection make of note kindly proceed attorney sila kindly let her finish honorable luistro [1:38:32] yes your honor um and given what i had read for the record um one of the affirmative defenses of the [1:38:39] respondent is that um persecution so we will do um without preempting our presentation and whatever it [1:38:49] is whatever objection that the prosecution will have on our presentation we will meet it [1:38:55] when the time comes now attorney sila may ask um again for the information of the court and [1:39:03] enlightenment of the court as well again the court recalled the proposal of senator judge bam [1:39:11] na alternate na lang this would have been completely avoided if we allowed that but the parties did not [1:39:18] agree so after um the first article nag presenting defense um i withdraw man later on then the objections [1:39:29] being raised by the lead prosecutor would not have any basis correct but the court decided to follow [1:39:37] um the rules given that there was no agreement um between the parties so may the court ask given the [1:39:45] dropping the withdrawal of the withdrawal of the articles is there an adjudicative purpose to allowing [1:39:54] the respondent to present evidence on the withdrawn articles or is um the basis the right to be heard on [1:40:05] those articles because the prosecution was heard on those articles no um the question is is there an [1:40:12] adjudicative purpose um involving that uh without um going into the details of our presentation your [1:40:22] honor i think the uh most important adjudicative purpose of this trial really is to provide justice [1:40:31] and i will relate that to the second point that you had made um and this was also something that the [1:40:37] court had already um reminded the prosecution it says that the main duty of the prosecution is not really [1:40:45] to convict but to secure a just conviction and therefore if the conviction is unjust it should not pursue [1:40:54] that conviction now um all we're saying your honor is this why is it that it would seem now [1:41:05] that the defense is being limited to what he uh to what she can only do in terms of her presentation [1:41:16] um of her case in chief hindi naman po kami yung nag withdraw ng articles hindi rin naman po kami [1:41:25] yung nagdesisyon para sa prosecution nagawin nila ito and with respect to the earlier suggestion of senator bam [1:41:32] um um um uh with due respect i don't think i don't see how that could have affected whatever happened [1:41:41] today because if we did that uh then or we didn't do it as uh we we really didn't uh mababago ba noon yung [1:41:53] ginawa ng prosecution that they completed presentation of their articles on all three uh on on the on [1:42:03] articles uh uh one and uh four and the order the order of can i cut you short yes because you would [1:42:13] have been heard the respondent would have been heard right after the presentation of an article and [1:42:20] should they decide to withdraw later on then both sides would have been heard already that's the [1:42:28] unfortunately again that's not what the rule says and unfortunately too the parties did not agree with your [1:42:34] permission attorney sheila senator judge bam bam's name was mentioned and alluded to so i'll [1:42:40] recognize him for a bit no on another point uh mr presiding officer uh nais ko lang kung linawin no [1:42:48] sa both parties kung ano ba yung pinag-uusapan natin so attorney sheila are you saying that you wish that [1:42:57] these articles are not dropped and that we continue as we had originally planned or would you want to talk to [1:43:07] your client first if whether she would prefer that these articles be dropped kasi uh itong [1:43:14] decision ni presiding officer by the way i'm gonna ask the same question kay uh honorable jinky rin because [1:43:22] nabanggit rin ni presiding officer na once matupad tong ruling na to hindi na po with prejudice i had to [1:43:28] clarify with my colleagues who are lawyers what that means that means that once these are withdrawn di [1:43:34] na to pwedeng ibalik ulit no uh wouldn't you want to discuss that first among your team and with attorney [1:43:42] sheila ang dating po kasi sa amin you don't want these articles to be dropped would you want to discuss that with [1:43:48] your client first to be sure kung nais bang may the drop nice by itong madrop na para isang artikel [1:43:56] lang ang pag-uusapan or nice ba natin itakal to na gaya na pag-usapan dati na apat na article dapat ito no [1:44:06] so that's just my point would you would both parties want to discuss this with your respective teams [1:44:11] because medyo mabigat po itong mga itong ruling na ito and then mr presiding officer i'd also like [1:44:17] to clarify uh is it the court's decision or the prosecution's decision to drop articles ito po [1:44:25] by hinaharap nila sa atin para tayo po mag decision or decision po ito ng prosecution na huwag [1:44:31] na italakay yung ibang mga artikulo [1:44:33] hiniling ng hiniling ng prosecution pinagpasahan ng korte it is a ruling of the chair that like any [1:44:41] other ruling is subject to either appeal or reconsideration of the proper time once they [1:44:47] have had enough time to as you said either consult their clients or reflect on the matter so of course [1:44:55] fully understanding that the appeal or consideration would have to be made by a senator judge on the [1:45:01] matter so procedurally can the defense um uh move for a reconsideration of the court's decision a [1:45:11] senator judge can move um yes but um to answer without without um without um preempting attorney [1:45:18] sheila i think what attorney sheila is saying she did not object to the motion of the prosecution to [1:45:25] withdraw only that because the situation is that um a withdrawn article will not be voted upon [1:45:33] anymore there is no mechanism um within the rules to allow the presentation of evidence on an article [1:45:43] or on a charge that will not be voted upon by the court anymore as we discussed in the sidebar earlier [1:45:49] may i clarify that is that correct uh attorney sheila you're not objecting to the withdrawal of the [1:45:55] article you're objecting to the ability to address them is that correct good afternoon your honor um [1:46:00] thank you for asking that question i think the manifestation my manifestation earlier was um clear [1:46:06] enough i in fact said and i would repeat as far as i can recall i said that this decision to withdraw [1:46:14] those articles is the prosecution's lookout and so whatever consequences of those withdrawal they should [1:46:20] be able to bear alone without any um without the respondent um suffering any consequences from that [1:46:28] decision now of course we take the suggestion that uh we will consult with the client and we will we will [1:46:34] um however we really need to record uh the fact that our objection on whatever is id uh whatever idea [1:46:42] uh that uh uh may be uh floating you know at this moment that um this decision of the prosecution will [1:46:50] somehow make decisions for how the respondent or the defense um will present our evidence or how long it [1:46:58] will take us all i'm saying your honor is that um whatever decision of the prosecution in terms of [1:47:07] withdrawing all these articles should not preempt yes um the decision of um the respondent so kung may [1:47:15] represent a po coming evidentia and we will or that we will be needing a certain number of days [1:47:22] uh para ipresent yung mga evidentia na yon let the respondent decide because i think it is um her right [1:47:29] um to secure her case um from the allegations already propounded um and exposed to the public [1:47:37] before this court okay thank you mr president i see the point of the um of um attorney sila in that [1:47:45] whatever the prosecution did today will not tie the hands of the respondent in presenting its evidence [1:47:51] without prejudice to the prosecution objecting at the appropriate time to whatever evidence they may present [1:47:58] um again um in accordance with the rules but allow me to continue attorney sila the relaxation of rule 18 [1:48:06] in so far as the withdrawn articles again just to clarify and enrich the records was in order to afford the [1:48:15] parties not in the way that um the uh lead the council correspondent viewed it but more again in a sense of [1:48:25] for for for in in the interest of fairness because as he said pinagbawal nang ang pagtanggol yung sarili [1:48:32] sa loob ng hukuman bawal pa rin pagtanggol yung sarili sa labas then that would really be definitely unfair the [1:48:40] reason behind the relaxing of rule 18 was more to afford um actually the respondent to um to um respond in the [1:48:52] the manner she may deem fit both in this courtroom again subject to the objections to rulings of the [1:49:00] court and outside so the intention was really not to um um nakalimuta ko yung sinabi mong ff [1:49:09] ang alam ko kasi mma eh free for all alam ko kasi mma um not not for it to be a free for all [1:49:17] but to really um allow the respondent to be able to um more for her actually because um as you have seen [1:49:24] violations of rule 18 have more been found by the court on the other side than on your side [1:49:32] and one final question um attorney sheila if all the articles were dropped and this case is completely [1:49:40] withdrawn as i asked senator judge alan earlier um the opportunity for the respondent to respond to the [1:49:52] finished articles as well will not be available and there would be no procedure by which it can be [1:50:01] um allowed the difference is now there is still a remaining article and this court still exists [1:50:09] the procedures are still there hence you are correct um attorney sheila that um it is without [1:50:16] prejudice to anything that um the defense may wish to do subject to the objections of the other party [1:50:23] if any there be and subject to the ruling um of the court um at the appropriate time we will make [1:50:30] those rulings and if at the appropriate time you will make those motions at the appropriate time if [1:50:35] objections are made they'll be made um as well um senator judge risa on that point senator judge [1:50:45] just on the point earlier raised by the presiding officer very quickly um just for the record mr presiding [1:50:52] officer if the uh council for the respondents feel strongly about the uh issue of the subjudice ruling [1:51:03] uh uh i would have thought that uh it would have been opportunity for for uh the council for the [1:51:08] respondents and the and the respondent herself to make use of uh other platforms to be able to [1:51:15] articulate because precisely they're no longer bound by the subjudicial rule but uh if they feel strongly [1:51:21] about it i have no problem uh reconsidering uh the ruling on rule 18 mr president uh just just for the record if [1:51:30] that's if that's if that's the preference of uh uh the respond it's uh i'm more than open to for [1:51:37] there is no period to seek a reconsideration or appeal the ruling of the chair in the rules therefore [1:51:42] this can be done at any time even after the respective parties consult with their clients um [1:51:50] senator judge antivirus is recognized what is your pleasure ma'am thereafter senator judge pia [1:51:54] uh salamat po uh mr presiding officer uh pending po yung pagsabi ng defense sa korte kung paano nila [1:52:05] gustong mag proceed at pending yung aksyon na pwedeng kunin ng korte sa pagsabi na yon as is our prerogative [1:52:14] uh ako po mr presiding officer for one uh gusto kong marinig yung tugon ni vicepresidente sa mga [1:52:23] allegasyon na inihaharap sa kanya ng prosecution sa kasong ito salamat po mr president thank you [1:52:31] senator judge pia is recognized what is your pleasure ma'am thank you uh mr presiding officer good afternoon [1:52:39] to everyone um we note mr presiding officer that you mentioned that yung uh abandonment of rule 18 is [1:52:46] really for the benefit of the um defense no uh and i would assume that they appreciate that but uh [1:52:57] his honor will recall when we were discussing in the corner earlier i had um voiced out my position that [1:53:04] uh it appears that the defense is also surprised so i had said that uh we should give [1:53:22] the defense time to decide how they want to react just because mobilis na nagdesisyon ng prosecution [1:53:28] whether this has been something they've been thinking about for a day a week overnight well [1:53:34] the defense is the one being accused the defense is the one who has to defend themselves and and we [1:53:42] have enough constitutional provisions legal provisions to protect the right of the defense [1:53:47] and one of them is to give them enough time to decide what is the proper course of action [1:53:52] so when we ask the lead uh defense lawyer uh a new next i think it's she said what she needed to say [1:54:01] which is they are they are reserving the right to do whatever they they deem necessary so they may [1:54:08] they may decide now we will um make use of the presiding officer's decision to abandon rule 18 but [1:54:16] maybe you have to give them time to think about it because if they will insist in whatever form and i [1:54:21] don't know what form that is that they want to present evidence whether that is by way of [1:54:27] uh a one-sided speech whether they will ask the different lawyers to to present to offer the evidence [1:54:35] that they would have offered if if natuloy ito or they will just have one spokesperson to say this [1:54:41] this is what the defense of the of the senate of the um vice president would have been or if they [1:54:48] want to say and even bring her here to have defended themselves we don't know at least i don't know [1:54:53] so all i'm saying is we need to give them sufficient time whether that's the whole afternoon [1:54:59] i don't know an hour let's ask them because to immediately say and and i know the presiding [1:55:05] officer is saying this was for their benefit so precisely give them time to decide how they want to [1:55:09] avail of this benefit or this right that this court would like to give them that you can now speak about [1:55:17] it in public pero yung nag-iisip pa lang sila how they will now defend the reputation of their client or [1:55:24] they have to ask their client what how she wants to proceed that is that directly affects if rule 18 [1:55:33] will be abandoned or not because now if si bing wala na kami pe-present dito free for all talaga [1:55:39] or do they might want to avail of it pero in 24 hours in 48 hours tomorrow that's their right because you can't [1:55:47] say nobody can say anything then suddenly pwede na and what they thought would happen next was that [1:55:54] they would be presenting evidence and that's not what's happening next so that's all i'm saying and [1:55:59] the last point i want to raise uh mr presiding officer is every politician knows and every human being knows [1:56:09] that their reputation is what they have [1:56:11] i don't know what they have i don't know what they have i don't know what they have he was a good father [1:56:16] she was a good mother he or she was a good public servant [1:56:21] diba so when you say i don't think about that and when you well it's who you are you know i [1:56:25] don't think about that and well more it did defend more now it's up to the the the senate senator [1:56:32] judges to decide if you defense lion is enough to acquit the accused but they have their they have [1:56:40] they whoever the accused is has that right so pag tinanatin bakit pa yun yung reason kung bakit [1:56:47] who here would like to be accused in a formal setting this is a formal setting this is an [1:56:52] impeachment court tapos sabihin na wala ka naman i-defend na eh [1:56:57] it's who you are it's what you stood for it's what you were voted for you have the right in the same [1:57:03] forum to address that so yun lang naman sakin and i'm not dictating how the defense wants to do it i'm [1:57:09] just saying that i do believe that they should be given time to decide how they represent their [1:57:14] client based on what they want to do and what their client wants to do thank you mr presiding [1:57:18] officer if at all um senator judge pia again we will be going on a recess and we will be resuming [1:57:25] after 26 days um and if at all any remedies the parties seek to avail of i corrected that attorney [1:57:34] shill earlier not only outside but within this court as well for example um by way of analogy um [1:57:40] i'm sure as lawyers you'll you'll you're also aware of this without guiding or trying to teach [1:57:46] the respondent there is such a thing as tender of excluded evidence at any point in time or aching to [1:57:52] it um which can be availed of by both parties actually should any evidence be excluded for one [1:58:00] reason or another either in formal offer or when um testimony is offered so there are remedies both [1:58:08] within and outside the court and we will afford the party's time um more than three weeks in fact to [1:58:13] be able to um prepare and decide what they want to do by the time we resume yes um presiding officer [1:58:20] but included in your ruling is that rule 18 is abandoned so i think uh i i leave it up to the [1:58:27] respondent if that's something that they are officially bringing to the attention of the impeachment [1:58:32] court then there will have to be uh modification of the ruling if if uh the presiding officer [1:58:39] will agree so i'm just saying that is that seems to be pending right now we cannot leave this hanging [1:58:44] because otherwise then then as soon as we step out it is the free for all so the uh the the [1:58:51] respondent i think should be given an opportunity to ask what if if there's anything they want to [1:58:57] ask if they don't then they don't if i may yes on this point yes on rule 18 uh as i said earlier i am [1:59:06] willing to uh move for its reconsideration uh but not now because we will have to debate it uh perhaps [1:59:13] if if the the court will agree uh pending a possible motion for reconsideration on when we resume [1:59:21] then rule 18 should continue uh to be uh in force uh and not abandon separate if if that is uh uh a you [1:59:32] know a middle ground to be able to move forward um and and only because we i i actually expected that [1:59:39] the uh the respondents uh and council would agree to it that they would now have the opportunity to speak [1:59:46] out but since they have uh objected to it and expressed their opposition to it and then maybe [1:59:54] with the permission of senator judge panglinan again as the presiding officer said earlier um consideration [2:00:02] for suspending rule 18 or making rule 18 no longer applicable to articles 1 3 and 4 is so as not to [2:00:12] shackle the respondent um again um an allegation has been made that the respondent is not allowed [2:00:19] to answer within the court and then there's rule 18 and the respondent is not allowed to answer [2:00:24] outside of the court so it was an attempt to um given the absence of procedures to allow it without [2:00:34] the respondent is not yet availed of so can we put it can we do it this way with the permission of [2:00:39] senator judge panglinan since it was designed really um going to the intent of that ruling for the [2:00:48] respondent um after consultation with your client in order to find out from to find out um her [2:00:56] disposition according to senator judge pia kindly indicate it and um with your permission senator [2:01:03] judge panglinan your motion for reconsideration will be activated once such intention is made by the [2:01:13] respondent and if um the court will authorize the presiding officer to rule on it during the recess [2:01:20] then i will rule on it during the recess to save on time as senator judge pia said earlier um can you [2:01:30] can you say it on the mic properly can you second if you want um yes mr president with with mr presiding [2:01:38] officer so so moved uh that we authorize the presiding officer to rule on that particular uh uh [2:01:45] matter uh during the recess so i second the motion uh mr president so the motion of senator judge panglinan [2:01:52] is taken in advisement in the meantime by the presiding officer and upon after um notice from the [2:02:03] respondent as regards um their intent in regard to this matter the court will act accordingly um on [2:02:11] the motion for reconsideration cum appeal of the honorable senator judge panglinan even during recess [2:02:18] while the court is in um recess um is that okay senator just panglinan i see him raising a thumbs up sign [2:02:25] yes senator judge villanueva what is your pleasure yes mr president thank you uh first of all again let me uh [2:02:31] place on record that this representation joins the uh motion of uh senator panglinan and uh supports it [2:02:40] uh fully mr presiding officer just uh uh one administrative matter that uh i would like to uh seek from this uh [2:02:52] court uh may we be given a copy of the uh ruling canina uh mr president because uh i think all of us [2:03:01] uh are are asking for it um i'd like to put on record um i'd like to put on record that 90 percent [2:03:07] of the uh ruling of the chair i would agree and support but uh i also have to say five percent i have [2:03:15] strong uh reservations at kasama na po dyan yung uh sa rule 18 hindi po ako naniniwala o mataas po yung aking [2:03:25] reservation na binibigyan ng uh opportunity yung respondent to uh speak uh uh freely doon sa tatlong [2:03:36] articles na in abandon because i believe uh she also deserves uh uh uh to be heard here in this [2:03:44] court kahit na in abandon mr president that's that's my uh personal uh opinion and uh i would uh submit to the [2:03:52] wisdom of the uh the court the majority and uh of course the uh defense to uh speak with their uh [2:04:01] with with the respondent with with the vice president and uh what what what what uh she desires uh to do [2:04:08] another uh five percent mr president i have to put on record i i actually uh don't agree and i will [2:04:15] give my comments uh through writing um yesterday mr president i made mention in this very uh rostrum [2:04:22] that finally finally i uh see something that makes a lot of sense when we talk about this uh impeachment [2:04:32] proceedings especially when i heard about the extensive uh presentation of attorney cabrera [2:04:38] uh and uh i would say uh for the first time mr president uh uh na naging very interesting [2:04:44] ang uh ang impeachment uh trial kaya hindi rin ako nabibigla na i i i withdraw yung uh tatlong uh article [2:04:56] but it is also right to give uh uh ample time for the respondent to uh talk about it here in this court uh mr [2:05:07] president mahalaga na pagkatapos po siyang uh paratangan left and right mabigyan din po siya [2:05:16] ng pagkakataong ipagtanggol yung kanyang sarili kahit na uh winidraw itong mga uh articles of [2:05:24] impeachment na ito itong tatlo na ito mr president and last but not the least i just want to put on [2:05:28] record sabi hunang matatanda sa amin sa bulakan ang naglalakad ng matulin kung matinig ay malalim so i'm [2:05:35] just reminding everyone of that thank you mr president hello um senator judge allen is recognized [2:05:42] sir presiding officer i just want to appreciate your explanations and the openness and of course [2:05:52] the statements of senator pangilinan senator risa senator joel senator judge uh pia may i just end um [2:06:04] my thoughts on this since we are going to take a break and something for all of us senator judges to [2:06:10] reflect on same thing with the prosecution and defense now next year 2027 will be the 40th [2:06:18] anniversary of the philippine constitution biblically after the israelis or the jews spent 40 years in [2:06:31] the desert instead of um one week it was said that uh it wasn't only the disobedience but because god [2:06:40] wanted them to be conquerors in the new land but they had a slave mentality so it took one generation or 40