'She appears to be arrogating powers of court': Diokno hits Sison for questioning prosecution

[0:00] I will proceed to dispose of some of the incidents that were brought up during the pre-trial conference, as well as other pending matters and motions. [0:13] First, on the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment, the pre-trial order stated that the prosecution is a free hand to determine the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment. [0:27] However, respondent will be similarly accorded the same right, insofar as the presentation of their evidence and witnesses-in-chief is concerned. [0:38] May we now learn from the panel of prosecutors, what will be the sequence of presentation of the articles of impeachment that they intend to pursue? [0:52] Attorney Jokno is recognized. You may proceed, sir. [0:55] Thank you, Your Honor. The first article we will be presenting will be Article 4 on grave threats. [1:04] Second will be confidential funds, Article 1. [1:08] Third, bribery. That is Article 3. [1:13] And the fourth is unexplained wealth, Your Honors. That's Article 4. [1:21] No, 2. [1:22] I'm sorry, Article 2. [1:23] I stand corrected. [1:24] So the sequence of presentation shall be Article 4, Article 1, Article 3, and then Article 2? [1:34] Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. [1:36] So I presume that beginning tomorrow, once we issue the subpoena for your first set of witnesses, you shall begin with Article 4? [1:45] Yes, Your Honor. [1:46] Again, Chair rules that the respondents have the same and equal privilege of presenting its case as it so desires when it's time to present its evidence-in-chief shall come. [1:58] What is the pleasure of the Council for responding? [2:00] Thank you, Your Honor. [2:01] May I ask if the prosecution is ready to present its first witness today because the defense is ready today, Your Honor? [2:08] Julie noted. We will get to that later. [2:10] Next item in the agenda. [2:14] If, Your Honor, please. [2:15] Yes, Representative Jokno. [2:16] I just noticed that Your Honor had already directed the Council for the defense not to propound questions to the prosecution. [2:25] This is already the second time that she's doing that. [2:28] She appears to be assuming or allegating the powers of the court because as I understand the rules, it's only the court that can propound questions to the councils. [2:37] Your Honor, may I comment? [2:40] The lady may comment. [2:41] Yes, Your Honor. I take exception to that manifestation of the good counsel. [2:47] In fact, the record would show, and if we can run the transcript back, [2:51] my question was addressed to the presiding officer, Your Honor. [2:55] Let us move forward, gentlemen and lady. [2:59] Next item for us to dispense with, the witness disclosure rule. [3:04] The prosecution proposed a three-day witness disclosure rule. [3:09] The respondents proposed a five-day witness disclosure rule, [3:13] but they understand the prosecution is amenable to the five-day witness disclosure rule. [3:19] Would that be correct, Representative Jokko? [3:20] Yes, Your Honor. We are amenable to the five-day disclosure rule. [3:23] Chair, therefore, rules that insofar as disclosure to either party of a witness to be presented, [3:30] not mentioned in the pretrial order and or briefs of the parties, shall be for five days. [3:37] This is subject also to the Chair's reminder that at the end of every week, [3:44] that would be a Wednesday while we are on recess, [3:47] we will ask the party presenting their case in chief to enumerate the witnesses they intend to present [3:53] for the following week with the corresponding motion for the request of issuance of subpoena [3:59] to be submitted the day before or on Tuesday, [4:02] so that we can act on it before the last day of the week [4:06] so that the subpoena can be properly issued in due course and in due time. [4:11] So, ordered, on the examination of a witness by more than one counsel [4:17] as propounded or proposed by the prosecution, [4:22] the rules of the Senate are clear. [4:25] Article 15 of the Rules on Impeachment states, [4:29] witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them [4:33] and then cross-examined by one person on the other side. [4:39] Court, therefore, rules that as a rule, only one person shall present a witness. [4:47] However, in the exigency of the delivery and administration of justice, [4:53] and under certain exceptions, the court may allow more than one counsel [4:57] to examine and or propound questions to a witness. [5:01] To cite an example, just for the sake of the record, [5:05] if, for example, the panel of prosecutor disagrees with how the counsel for prosecutor is handling the case, [5:13] the panel of prosecutors, or one of them, can take over, [5:16] and that is but proper and should be allowed [5:19] and will therefore be considered as an exemption to that rule. [5:22] And other similar exigencies will be allowed in order to afford [5:26] the orderly administration of justice and of these proceedings. [5:30] So, ordered, insofar as the BIR box is concerned, [5:36] what is the pleasure? [5:38] Insofar as the BIR box is concerned, [5:46] this box was turned over to the Senate as part of the documents, [5:51] including the Articles of Impeachment. [5:53] However, the court is not yet in custodia lehis of this box, [5:58] given that there is no lawful order issued by the court [6:01] for this box to be turned over to the Senate, [6:04] more so that it is not yet offered in evidence, [6:07] not even as of yet marked. [6:11] The chair, therefore, orders that the BIR box, [6:14] closed, sealed, and as it is received, [6:17] be sent back to the BIR, or the Bureau of Internal Revenue, [6:22] without prejudice to any action that the court may take, [6:25] if a motion will be filed by either party [6:27] for the issuance of a subpoena, [6:29] and we shall await action, if any, [6:31] by the BIR commissioner, should that time come. [6:34] So, ordered. [6:36] Now, insofar as the subpoena requested by the prosecution [6:39] for the two NBI agents, [6:42] may I request the clerk of court to kindly read the motion [6:44] for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum. [6:47] The prosecution, to the undersigned public prosecutors, [6:59] respectfully request the issuance of subpoenas ad testificandum, [7:03] directing the following witnesses to appear and testify [7:06] before the Honorable Impeachment Court on July 6, July 7, [7:09] and July 8, 2026, at 2 p.m., [7:12] as their testimonies are material, relevant, [7:14] and necessary to establish the allegations under Article 4 [7:17] of the Articles of Impeachment, [7:19] as well as matters necessarily incidental thereto, [7:22] and for purposes of the identification and authentication [7:25] of other evidence before the Impeachment Court. [7:27] Number one, attorney Jeremy C. Lotok, [7:30] regional director, National Bureau of Investigation. [7:34] Number two, John Mark Kalilung, [7:36] senior agent, National Bureau of Investigation. [7:39] Respectfully submitted, [7:40] cancel city for Pasay City, July 1, 2026. [7:44] We are not in receipt of any reservation or objection [7:47] on the part of the respondent, [7:49] counsel for respondent, rather. [7:51] However, Chair would like to ask the prosecutors, [7:53] do you only request for a subpoena ad testificandum [7:59] or a subpoena ad testificandum as well? [8:04] If I understand the record, Your Honor, [8:06] please, it is a subpoena both for ad testificandum [8:10] and ad testificandum. [8:13] The motion filed by the prosecutors [8:15] is only for a subpoena ad testificandum. [8:18] That's why the Chair is clarifying. [8:19] Your Honor. [8:22] I stand corrected, if Your Honor, please. [8:24] It's just for ad testificandum. [8:26] Counsel for Respondent? [8:27] If I may, Your Honor, just to set the record state, [8:30] the presiding officer earlier inquired [8:32] or mentioned that the court is not in receipt [8:37] of any objection from the respondent, [8:39] but just to set the record straight, [8:42] the respondent has not received any copy [8:47] of the request for a subpoena [8:49] being mentioned today, Your Honor. [8:51] What we received, Your Honor, [8:57] was a manifestation containing the list of the witnesses [9:02] of the prosecution for July 6, 7, and 8, [9:06] in Your Honor. [9:07] And so it would be impossible for the defense, [9:11] for the respondent, [9:12] to object or to even comment on a request [9:15] that we were not served with any copy with. [9:18] The two witnesses against whom a subpoena [9:21] has been requested by the prosecution [9:23] or mentioned in the pretrial brief of the prosecution [9:27] and was not commented on by the respondents [9:31] in their pretrial brief. [9:33] But if you do have any objections now, [9:34] the court would be more than glad, [9:37] or reservations, [9:37] the court would be more than glad to hear it [9:39] before ruling on the motion for the issuance of a subpoena [9:41] on these two NBI agents. [9:43] At this point, Your Honor, that's fine. [9:45] We'll just place on record our objections [9:48] as the testimonial evidence is presented. [9:52] Julie noted, [9:53] Chair hereby orders that the subpoena [9:56] ad testificandum and duce stecum [9:59] be issued to the aforementioned [10:03] two NBI agents contained in the motion [10:07] filed by the Council for the Prosecutors. [10:11] Although by nature's subpoena is ex parte, [10:15] we would instruct, [10:17] Chair would instruct the Clerk of Court [10:18] to kindly upload all of the filings [10:21] of all of the parties to the website [10:23] for the information not only of the Senator Judges [10:25] but also of the parties and their councils. [10:29] The Chair earlier, [10:30] Council for Respondents said [10:32] that witnesses for the succeeding week [10:35] shall be manifested in open court [10:36] on the last day of the trial, [10:38] in this case by Wednesday, [10:39] insofar as the next week's trial [10:42] is concerned. [10:44] Now, insofar as the request [10:47] for subpoena for bank records [10:50] and AMLC records, [10:52] Chair recognizes the Clerk of Court [10:53] to kindly read and spread into the records.