Sara Duterte's counsel Sheila Sison delivers her opening speech

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: As Julie noted, opening remarks for the respondent. Counsel for Respondent has 15 minutes and we will give you the same latitude we gave. Counsel for the Prosecution for an additional three minutes, should you so need it. You may proceed, ma'am. [00:00:18] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honors, fellow Filipinos, good afternoon. As we begin today the impeachment trial of the Vice President and in the days ahead, this Court will undertake its constitutional task of receiving and weighing the party's evidence and ultimately to decide whether these pieces of evidence justify either a judgment of conviction or acquittal guided only by its members' conscience and their solemn oath to do impartial justice. The present undertaking of this Court therefore not only carries the weight of the Constitution, but also the imprint of our nation's history because the Filipino people have shown that they never forget. We as a nation never forget. But why is the act of remembering important? What does it matter to our history and to ordinary Filipinos? Because in this trial, the prosecution proposes that we unseat the Vice President elected to office by more than 32 million Filipino people. more than the number of votes cast for the sitting President and much greater than any of the votes secured by each of the members of the House of Representatives who now are here to prosecute her and seek to undo this people's choice. In the words, the very clear, the most important part of the votes are the most important part of the House of Representatives and the most important part of the House of Representatives. Whatever once political persuasion is the reality is that the prosecution now comes before this Court to remove a Vice President chosen by an overwhelming number of the electorate. You all have heard the prosecution say repeatedly that this is because they seek accountability. That the people have a right to hold their leaders accountable. This is not a matter of debate. Indeed, the people have a right to demand accountability from their leaders. What we have yet to hear from the prosecution, however, is this. When the Constitution declared under Section 1, Article 11, that public office is a public trust, and that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives, the Constitution does not only speak to the Vice President. It also demands the same standards from the prosecutors. Being public officers themselves, the public prosecutors and the members of the House of Representatives are also held to the same constitutional standard. And so we must remember what history tells us. This is not the first time that members of the House of Representatives have attempted to remove the Vice President, and in a manner not compliant with the Constitution. In a July 25, 2025 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously declared in Duterte v. House of Representatives, GR numbers 278353 and 278359, that the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives were tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Rendering the articles of the Constitution, rendering the articles of the Constitution, rendering the articles of impeachment that the House transmitted last year to the Senate as void abd initial. Early this year, the Supreme Court unanimously denied with finality the House of Representatives motioned for reconsideration of that decision with a reminder that while impeachment is a powerful democratic process to call out corruption and grave abuse, impeachment can be abused. And that impeachment should never be abused to maintain the hegemonic dominance of greed by shaming those who occupy high government positions into preventing them from doing what they were sworn to do. And perhaps the most enduring reminder of the Supreme Court that we must not forget in the entire course of this trial is that, in the words of the Court, the rule of law that does justice is our lodestar. And that justice includes accountability. Justice includes fairness. Without fairness, there is abuse. This fairness is what our democracy is all about. It is in light of these reminders that we draw attention to certain fundamental legal principles that we think we must not forget throughout this trial. If we are to be true and honest to our proclaimed values such as the pursuit of accountability, justice, and integrity in our system of government, then we must remain possessed of an unyielding resolve to ensure that the trial and judgment in this case are done in accordance with our system of government. The law and the discipline required by the rules. Otherwise, those who stand in sanctimonious judgment of the vice president will send a clear message that the law can be bent when it suits the convenience of the powerful. The law and that justice can be successful and that justice can be sacrificed at the altar of partisan interests. It is important to remember the important note of our Supreme Court. Impeachment is not a purely political proceeding. It is primarily a legal, political, and constitutional mechanism. Ibig sabihin, kailangan na ayon sa batas at konstitusyon ang anumang proseso nito. According to the Constitution, it is the Senate that shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. This power is not shared. The Constitution gives no other body, department, tribunal, agency, or a mere committee of any of these institutions the power to try an impeachment case. The House merely initiates the Senate tries. Yet, we have seen the Committee on Justice conduct what its chairperson, the lead prosecutor in this case, described as a mini trial. Which, as we all had witnessed, became a vast fishing expedition of alleged evidence that were not even part of the impeachment complaints under its consideration and which the respondent accused was made to answer. In that mini trial, we saw how the purported pieces of evidence were curated to construct a narrative against the Vice President even before this case reaches trial. The articles of impeachment presented before this court as an exercise of the House's power to initiate impeachment cases are, therefore, in sober truth, the product of an impermissible intrusion of clear constitutional boundaries. Over the course of the impeachment trial, the prosecution will attempt to convince this court and the court of public opinion that the allegations in the articles of impeachment are supported by materials they obtained during their mini trial and that evidence exists to sustain a judgment of conviction. They will claim that the allegations. They will claim that the notices of suspension and disallowance issued by the COA and the COA decision denying the Vice President's appeal of that disallowance support their accusations with the release of that decision by the COA conveniently timed and coinciding with the committee hearings. They will claim that the certifications of the PSA confirm their allegation that recipients of the confidential funds do not exist, even though they listed one Mary Grace P. in their pretrial brief as among their witnesses or that the liquidation of the confidential funds in a span of 11 days was allegedly swift as to invite suspicion. The prosecution will assert that the supposed NBI findings of similar signatures across a number of acknowledgment receipts submitted to the COA are supportive of their conclusion that the disbursements of the confidential funds were irregular. What the prosecution avoided informing the public so far are these: that it was the then Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, Amena Pangandaman, who issued a memorandum for the President through Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin on October 18, 2022, recommending the approval of the Office of the Vice President's request for confidential funds. That the Office of the President did in fact approve the recommendation of the DBM through a memorandum from the Executive Secretary dated November 28, 2022, and signed by the former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin by order of the President. That on December 13, 2022, 2022, the DBM issued a special allotment order number Ciro-BMB-C-22-001-2004, signed by former Secretary Amena Pangandaman to cover the request of financial assistance subsidy and confidential funds of the OVP that, notwithstanding the impending end of the fiscal year, the confidential funds were nonetheless released released to the OVP on December 20, 2022, 2022 under this documented approval process. That the COA decision is far from being final. That there is a pending motion for reconsideration of that decision. That, assuming arguendo, the COA denies that MR today, or while this trial is ongoing, as could plausibly happen under the circumstances, the respondent accused still has legal remedies available under the law and rules, and can file a petition to question the validity of any forthcoming resolution of the resolution of the COA on the MR, under Rule 64, via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and more importantly, that nothing in the Notice of Disallowance or COA decision states any findings of supposed misuse of confidential funds as confirmed by Attorney Gloria Camora when she was asked on this point during the committee hearing "On April 14, 2026, across all other articles, the prosecution will lay a landscape of what it deems to be their evidence in support of their speculations and conclusions." We are not strangers to all these accusations, precisely because this was not the first time these narratives were foisted into the minds of the general public. We have heard the same tales and stories of these accusations since 2024, when the House conducted its quad-com hearings, and most recently the minor trial of its Committee on Justice. But what we must not forget, amid all these accusations, is the fundamental legal principle that the burden of proof never shifts. The burden of proof never shifts. He who accuses must prove his allegations with evidence that meets not only the degree of proof required, but also meets the evidentiary standards of admissibility, credibility, relevance, materiality, and competence. We therefore should not lose sight of the core principle that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden, the accused need not even offer evidence on her behalf, and she will be entitled to her and she will be entitled to an acquittal. This is the law then. This is the law now. And the underlying principle for this burden of proof is simple. Under our Constitution, every accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. An accused has in her favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. This also brings to forward the reality that, in the words of the Supreme Court, in People Supreme Court, in People Vs. Pagal. The individual citizen is but the speck of particle or molecule, vis-a-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government. And his only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights, which shield him in times of need. Thank you. Ikondisyon ang kaisipan ng mamamayang Pilipino at sa gitna ng walang humpay na komentaryo sa mga pampublikong espasyo, wala pang maituturing na anumang ebidensya o aligasyon na napapatunayan ang prosekusyon sa simpleng dahilan na ang bawat ebidensya ay kailangang dumaan muna sa paglilitis at pagsusuri ng Korteng may tanging kapangyarihan sa ilalim ng ating saligang batas. Higit sa lahat, ang anumang paglilitis ay kailangang na ayon sa itinatakda ng ating batas at konstitusyon at hindi lamang sa kagustuhan ng iilang may hawak ng kapangyarihan. One might ask, why is it important that we must not forget these basic principles? The ruling of the Supreme Court tells us why. The Bill of Rights applies to the entire impeachment process because in as much as our court recognizes that impeachment is a political process, it reminds us that it is not a purely political process but a legal and constitutional mechanism. Thus, if we are to uphold the rule of law, serve justice, and invoke the accountability mechanism, then this court and we as a people must guarantee that all efforts to hold our leaders accountable must be done right. This we must not forget. I thank the court and the public for the privilege of your time. May God bless our country. [00:16:29] Speaker 1: Opening statement of the council correspondent. As Julie noted and entered into the records, the court would say,