Sison: House has repeatedly tried to unseat VP Sara in violation of Constitution — ANC

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Honours, 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. Sa makatwid, ang malinaw na layunin sa likod na mga paratang na ito ay ang pagpapatalsik sa isang Vice Presidenteng inihalal ng mahigit 32 milyong Pilipino at bunga ng kanilang malayang pagpapasya. Whatever one's 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 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 impeachment, 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. But 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. "Mga batayang prinsipyo" "Mga batayang prinsipyo" "Nadapat nating tandaan sa buong panahon ng paglilitis na ito, anuman ang ating kulay o politika." 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 the command of the constitution, the majesty of 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 and that justice can be sacrificed at the altar of partisan interests." Mahalagang tandaan ang mahigpit na paalala ng ating Korte Suprema. 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 suburb 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 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 confirmed their allegation that recipients of the confidential funds do not exist even though they listed one Mary Grace Piatos in their pre-trial 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 acknowledgement 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 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 that 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, the DBM issued the special allotment order number CRO-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 to the OVP on December 20, 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 our duendo, 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 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 Camorra 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 the House conducted its Quad-Com hearings, and most recently the mini 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, the accused, the accused need not even offer evidence on her behalf, 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. The Bill of Rights guarantees. This also brings to fore the reality that, in the words of the Supreme Court in People vs. Pagal, An individual citizen is but the individual citizen is but the speck of a particular 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. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. And his only reason is the one. 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. [00:16:07] Speaker 2: Opening statement of the Council's correspondent. The court will now 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. First, on the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment. The pre-trial order stated that the prosecution is a freehand to determine the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment. However, respondent will be similarly accorded the same right, in so far as the presentation of their evidence and witnesses in chief is concerned. May we now learn from the panel of prosecutors, rather, what will be the sequence of presentation of the articles of impeachment that they intend to pursue. Attorney Zocno is recognized. You may proceed, sir. [00:17:12] Speaker 3: Thank you, Your Honor. The first article we will be presenting will be Article 4 on grave threats. Second will be confidential funds, Article 1. Third, bribery. That is Article 3. And the fourth is unexplained wealth, Your Honors. That's...