1
00:02:48,340 --> 00:02:52,770
Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino: ng karunungang kumilala sa katotohanan at ng puso.

2
00:03:27,530 --> 00:03:48,080
Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: Senator Judge Pangilinan. Senator Judge Sotto III. Senator Judge Tulfo Erwin. Senator Judge Tulfo Raffy. Senator Judge Villanueva. Senator Judge Villar Camille. Senator Judge Villar Mark. Senator Judge Zubiri. The Senate President.

3
00:03:48,930 --> 00:03:54,230
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: With 21 senators present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum.

4
00:03:56,360 --> 00:04:16,510
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: The Court was convened on May 18, 2026. For the record, since then, the Court has issued summons and conducted pre-trial proceedings which are all made part of the records of this case. Resolution No. 39 or the Rules of Procedure of Impeachment Trials as amended shall continue to apply.

5
00:04:21,400 --> 00:04:25,400
Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: Your Honors, we are now ready to hear the statement of the Senate President.

6
00:04:40,260 --> 00:07:11,450
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Before we begin, with the Court's kind indulgence, I wish to deliver a brief opening statement. Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished senator-judges, sa araw na ito, binubuksan natin ang pagdinig sa kasong impeachment laban sa Pangalawang Pangulo ng Republika ng Pilipinas, ang kagalang-galang na Sara Zimmerman Duterte, alinsunod sa ating Saligang Batas. Sa pagtupad natin sa tungkuling ito, malinaw ang panata na ating sinumpaan: to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws of the Philippines. Ibig sabihin nito, ang bawat pasya natin ay dapat nakabatay lamang sa Saligang Batas, sa ating mga batas, sa mga alintuntunin ng hukumang ito, at sa mga ebidensyang ihaharap nang walang kinikilingan at walang pinapanigan. Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism that holds the highest public officials of the Republic accountable to the people. We cannot achieve accountability, nor can we faithfully serve justice, without the truth. Karapatan ng sambayanan na malaman kung may katotohanan ang mga paratang laban sa Pangalawang Pangulo. Tungkulin nating timbangin ang mga ebidensyang ihaharap at tiyaking ang ating magiging pasya ay nakabatay lamang sa batas at sa mga katotohanang mapatutunayan sa paglilitis. Ipinagkakaloob ng Saligang Batas sa Senado ang natatanging kapangyarihang dinggin, litisin, at pagpasyahan ang lahat ng kaso ng impeachment. Kaakibat nito ang pananagutang tiyakin na ang paglilitis ay isinasagawa nang may integridad, kaayusan, at buong paggalang sa proseso. Sisiguraduhin natin na magiging maayos, bukas, at madaling maunawaan ng ating mga kababayan ang prosesong ito. Pagkakalooban ang magkabilang panig—ang prosekusyon at ang depensa—ng sapat at makatarungang pagkakataon upang magharap ng ebidensya, magsuri at magtanong sa mga testigo, at mailahad nang buo ang kani-kanilang mga argumento.

7
00:07:13,380 --> 00:07:23,380
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Sa ganitong paraan, mahiharap sa taong bayan ang malinaw na batayan. upang maunawaan ang mga isyong nakapaloob sa articles of impeachment.

8
00:07:25,280 --> 00:07:54,440
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Kasabay ng paghahanap sa katotohanan, ang tungkulin natin tiyakin, iginagalang ang mga karapatan ng bawat panig, lalo na ang karapatan ng respondent vice president sa isang patas at makatarungan paglilitis. Due process and fair play must remain paramount at every stage of this trial. Let us be firm in the search for truth. Let us remain faithful to the rules of this court,

9
00:07:54,620 --> 00:08:48,330
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: the rule of law, and above all, the Constitution. Nakatutok ang buong sambayanan. Bawat kilos, salita, at pagpapasyang ating gagawin ay huhubog sa kasaysayan. At ang kasaysayan ang huling huhusga kung tayo ay kumilos nang tapat at nararapat. Nais kong bigyan ng katiyakan ang lahat, lalo na ang ating mga kababayan. Gagampanan ko ang aking tungkulin nang patas at may katapatan. Magalang kong hinihikayat ang bawat senator-judge na gampanan din natin ang ating tungkulin nang may dangal at pananagutan sa ating Konstitusyon upang maging karapat-dapat tayo sa tiwalang ipinagkaloob sa atin ng sambayanang Pilipino. Thank you, distinguished senator-judges.

10
00:09:04,010 --> 00:09:19,600
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Pursuant to Rule 2, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, as amended, we now proceed to the election of the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court. Senator Judge Panfilo Lacson is recognized for the election.

11
00:09:19,800 --> 00:09:21,560
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Point of order, Mr. Presiding Officer.

12
00:09:23,670 --> 00:09:26,130
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Yes, we recognize the gentleman from Taguig.

13
00:09:26,330 --> 00:09:31,730
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Mr. Senate President and Presiding Officer.

14
00:09:33,930 --> 00:10:01,230
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: As the preamble of the Constitution said, imploring the aid of the Almighty God. And as you said yourself, that every stage of this impeachment, we have to make sure na patas, we have to make sure na may due process, we have to make sure that it is fair. It is very clear in the Constitution of the Philippines that the presiding officer is the Senate President.

15
00:10:04,370 --> 00:10:52,250
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Section 3, paragraph 6 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution: The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. I will go to that other two-thirds inquiry later on because this is another threshold issue, Mr. President. But to further the point of order, with the indulgence of Senator Lacson so that we can discuss this intelligently, on the final question of whether impeachment,

16
00:10:54,520 --> 00:11:05,510
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: sorry, on the issue of who shall preside, under the Constitution, it

17
00:11:07,970 --> 00:11:24,010
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: may seem that it does not say who should preside. But if you look at the records of the Constitutional Commission No. 40, 26 July 1986, the framers deliberately chose the phrase... Sorry, Mr. President.

18
00:11:33,630 --> 00:13:15,830
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: I am referring to Section 6, Article XI, and then Constitutional Commission No. 41, 27 July 1986. The Presiding Officer, Mr. Treñas: Commissioner Davide is recognized. Mr. Davide: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I have some proposed amendments on Section 3, Subparagraph 5. The Presiding Officer, Mr. Treñas: The gentleman may proceed. Mr. Davide, who later became Chief Justice: This is without prejudice to whatever amendments may be accepted by the Committee when the Aquino amendments will be taken up. It would consist in adding a new sentence on Line 20 before the phrase, 'No person shall be convicted.' Insert the following: 'In all other cases, the President of the Senate shall preside.' The Presiding Officer: What does the Committee say? Mr. Monsod: Is it not understood that when the President of the Philippines is on trial, it is the only time when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside? Is it necessary to say that the Senate President shall preside during all other times? The Presiding Officer: Mr. Davide. Mr. Davide: Mr. Presiding Officer, I precisely presented this because we have a distinction when it comes to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But with that clarification, that in all other cases, it should be the President of the Senate who shall preside, I withdraw my amendment. So it is but elementary, Mr. President, in statutory, especially constitutional construction, that the spirit as well as the letter is followed. The spirit of the Constitution is that it is the Senate President who will preside. This is not an ordinary statement, dictum, or...

19
00:13:17,560 --> 00:14:41,510
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: It was not a capricious statement in the discussion. Precisely because the Senate President is elected by the majority. As an example, when Senator Pimentel did not like the vote and did not vote with the majority, he offered to resign. So the point, Mr. President, is this. Number one, institutional integrity. We need to protect... The legitimacy of these proceedings. Even with the substitute presiding officer acts fairly, a conviction or acquittal reached under constitutionally defective process would invite judicial challenge and cast doubt on the validity of the entire trial. Do we want to go 30 weeks? If we follow the number of days submitted in the pre-trial, 62 and 30, and three days every week, so 30 weeks yun. Then after the 30 weeks, we'll end up in the Supreme Court kasi kune-question natin kung tama ba kung sinong nag-preside. Why is it important? Why can't any of the 24 preside? Remember, under our very rules, hindi ko na babasahin para mas umikle. In our very rules, the presiding officer can decide on the spot or he can throw it to the body or he can call a caucus or whatever you call it. to be able to decide. And we experienced that during the corona trial.

20
00:14:43,860 --> 00:15:30,680
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: And that's one reason why everyone acclaims the late Senate President. And really, not only because of how he carried it himself, but how the consensus and how he carried it with the minority. Secondly, jurisdiction and regularity. The Senate's jurisdiction over an impeachment trial is constitutional. The exercise of jurisdiction must conform to the Constitution. And the Senate's validity adopted impeachment rules. We cannot say we're following the Constitution, then we will not follow the Constitution. If the Constitution and its framers prescribe who shall preside, who are we to change the Constitution here today? We cannot enlarge or diminish the Constitution arrangement through internal rules or through ad hoc resolution. Lastly, due process.

21
00:15:32,250 --> 00:16:32,750
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Kailangan malinaw po sa lahat ng partido, both to the prosecution and the defense, kung ano yung korte, kung ano ang two-thirds, kung ano ang charges, kung sino magpe-preside. So kung now, during the first day, we're going to change who's going to preside, and it's against the Constitution, what more changes are we going to do in the next few days? Ano ang limit ng puwede natin palitan sa Constitution at hindi? The authority must come from the Constitution or the governing law, not from the vote of a tribunal. A litigant is entitled to have the case heard by the decision maker designated by law. The law cannot say that ang mag-i-hear kay Sen. Marcoleta ay Sandiganbayan tapos sa Court of Appeals natin siya dadalhin. Hindi puwedeng sabihin sa RTC dapat i-hearing si Juan de la Cruz tapos sa Sandiganbayan natin dadalhin. Hindi puwedeng sabihin tatlo sila sa CA pero in this case, nagbotohan kami, isa lang kami mag-i-hearing.

22
00:16:34,590 --> 00:17:36,920
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Proceedings before a judge or hearing officer who lacks the legal authority are invalid regardless of the fairness of the proceedings. A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and may be attacked at any time. It creates no right and produces no effect. It remains a basic fact that, in law, the choice of the proper forum is crucial, as the decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Tan v. Cinco, G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016, penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, First Division. The constitutional authority, Mr. President, is very clear. Now, let's put that aside for a moment. But we're not allowed to do that. But for a moment, let's put that aside. The Constitution is not clear and does not tell us what to do.

23
00:17:38,760 --> 00:18:36,840
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: The rules of the Senate says that any amendment should be presented a day before. And that's why the then minority, when I was Senate President, walked out. Because your contention was, when we gave it to the Committee on Rules, kahit may gitna ng araw na at binabalik ng Rules, we did not follow the rules. So on the rump session or alleged rump session on June 3, first of all, you did not have a quorum of 13. But let's assume, assume for the sake of argument, I'm not giving you that point. As far as I'm concerned, it's in the Supreme Court, walang quorum ang 12. Assuming may quorum ang 12, you did not follow the rules. There was not a one-day notice for the rules. And then if you look at the records, this impeachment court adopted the rules on May 18.

24
00:18:39,650 --> 00:18:51,150
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: So that means that it is this impeachment court that now has to adopt any amendment to the rules. We did not debate that amendment to the rule.

25
00:18:52,860 --> 00:19:55,910
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: We cannot now just change the rules. We're here for the opening statements. We're here for the trial. Are we here to change the rules? We're changing the rules here today, Mr. President. So, Mr. President, later on I'll ask permission to talk about yung two-thirds because both the issue of the presiding officer and the issue of what constitutes two-thirds of all Members is a threshold issue. Para maintindihan na lang po ng lahat, lalo po sa mga kababayan natin na nanonood, Merriam-Webster, simple definition: a threshold issue is a preliminary question, minimum requirement, or foundational condition that must be met or resolved before proceeding to the substantive merits of a case, project, or process. This initial criterion, if

26
00:19:57,480 --> 00:21:04,980
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: this initial criteria is not satisfied, further action is typically dismissed or halted. I want to avoid that this... Impeachment trial will be declared null and void. I want to avoid walkouts. I want to avoid any delays, Mr. President. The Senate President is more than capable. He said he is willing. He said he is ready. He has been in many situations in his life that people say you cannot do it. But he has done well. He has studied. So what is the issue? Why do we have to vote for a presiding officer, Mr. President? Why can't we follow the Constitution? So the point of order, Mr. President, is that amending the rules, implementing a null and void rule, and violating the Constitution will endanger this whole hearing, Mr. President. So please rule on the point of order, and I hope that the Senate President, who is more than able, will preside.

27
00:21:06,460 --> 00:21:08,540
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Thank you to the gentleman from Taguig.

28
00:21:11,180 --> 00:21:35,740
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Before I express my views on the matter, let me just put into the record the facts on when we amended Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure on the impeachment trials. On June 3, 2026, Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri proposed Senate Resolution No. 430 and that was adopted during that time.

29
00:21:36,730 --> 00:22:18,460
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: And then, on the same day, The same resolution was adopted and renumbered to Resolution No. 14. It was published on June 9, 2026 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer as well as Malaya. During that time, in June 3, when we amended the rules, everyone had the opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed resolution. And since no one objected, we adopted. Resolution No. 430 and renumbered it to Resolution No. 40. That is anchored on our

30
00:22:20,410 --> 00:22:37,470
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Constitution, Article 6, Section 3, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution, that the Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section. So, my view. To the good gentleman,

31
00:22:38,990 --> 00:23:04,580
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: let me just finish, sir. My view is this resolution has been duly approved and everyone was given an opportunity to discuss that, to object. However, no one objected to that resolution and it was duly approved by the body. So any discussion regarding...

32
00:23:06,110 --> 00:23:36,970
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: This resolution should be discussed in plenary when the Senate convenes as a legislative body. In the past precedents, during the ERAP impeachment, November 15, 2000, the body as well approved the rules of impeachment in plenary. During the Corona impeachment, March 23,

33
00:23:40,210 --> 00:24:03,110
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: 2011, once again, Resolution No. 39 was adopted in plenary. So, any issues pertaining to this resolution should be discussed in plenary when the Senate convenes as a legislative body. So, that is the position of the Chair and the view of the Chair on this matter.

34
00:24:03,700 --> 00:28:13,910
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Sir President, first may I dispute that you used the word fact. It is not a fact that the rules were changed because it is being disputed that first, there was no quorum at that day. Second, if we are going to amend the rules of impeachment for the impeachment trial in plenary under the rules of the Senate, Section 136, second paragraph says, the rules may be amended by means of a motion that should be presented at least one day before its consideration. It was not presented on June 2. So, we did not follow our rules. So, a rule that was passed that did not follow our rules or amendment that was passed that did not follow our rules is void. You cannot get anything out of it. It is a nullity. So, if today we pass a... Change in our rules and we do not follow our own rules in changing the rules. We cannot follow the rules. Secondly, Mr. President, the impeachment court already adopted our rules. Iba po ang plenary. Tama po kayo doon. I agree with you there. Iba po yung impeachment court. So is the impeachment court now hostage or subject to whatever changes the legislative body does and we will not adopt? then why did we adopt the rules when we took our oath? We adopted it because the impeachment court is not powerless to talk about our rules. But finally, Mr. President, for the sake of argument, just for the sake of argument, huwag na natin tignan yung mga amendments. It's against the Constitution. So can the impeachment court disobey the Constitution? If the Constitution says the presiding officer should be the Senate President, can we now say na no, pagbatuhan natin kung sino? Because if we say that we can, what next? Will we add to the articles of impeachment? Will we lower the bar of the quantum of evidence needed? Will we say that baliwala na yung pre-trial brief at bahala na si Batman? So, Mr. President, I thought that's why we have the rules. Because when we have the rules, it dictates fair play. And the rule says, it is the Senate President who will preside. So if now we're not going to follow the rules, anong pinag-uusapan natin patas? Anong pinag-uusapan natin due process? Anong pinag-uusapan natin na fairness? It is who we chose as Senate President is a political. So we made our case doon. we would have a more fair. You made your case, you got the majority. Now you got the majority, we will give you all the support, Mr. President. But we have to follow the Constitution. We cannot have a trial where we do not follow the Constitution, Mr. President. I think pinaka-basic po yun. Saan sa Constitution po nakalagay, Mr. President, that ang nakalagay dito po, only in case the President. Let me give you a hypothetical. God forbid, ha? God forbid. God forbid may mangyari sa Pangulong Marcos, maging Pangulo ngayon po si Sarah Duterte. My view is tuloy yung impeachment. Pero ang magpre-preside na yung Chief Justice. O pwede ba tayo magbutuhan na huwag yung Chief Justice ang mag-preside? So how is it possible that today we're starting out on the wrong foot by arguing who will preside when the Constitution already settled it, Mr. President? So I appeal to my colleagues. There are a lot of accommodations, there are a lot of things, may bigayan talaga dito. May botohan, may caucus, may in-camera discussions. Pero pagdating kung sino mag-prepreside na malinaw sa konstitusyon, huwag na natin pag-awayan yun. The prosecution is here, I think they're ready. The defense is here, I think they're ready. Let's give the Filipino people a fair trial. Hindi po fair kung pipiliin natin kung sino ang ano.

35
00:28:15,580 --> 00:28:35,580
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Kahit ako piliin nyo, hindi ko po tatanggapin yun kasi mali po yun. Hindi po yun ang nakalagay sa Constitution natin. Very, very clear po sa records ng Constitutional Commission. Walang makaka-amend doon. We are not given any latitude on this matter, Mr. President. I appeal to you, Mr. President. This is your Senate presidency.

36
00:28:36,610 --> 00:28:43,890
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Thank you. Thank you for those views to the good gentleman from Taguig. Kanina po, nabanggit ko ho.

37
00:28:45,430 --> 00:30:00,210
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: In my manifestation as the Senate President, that Resolution No. 39 or the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trial as amended shall continue to apply. So in other words po rin na-recognize po nitong impeachment court yung amendments na ginawa po natin noong June 3. At kagaya po nang nasabi ko po kanina. The humble view of this presiding officer is if there are any discussion on Resolution No. 43, as adopted as Resolution No. 40, it should be done in plenary. Because doon natin in-adopt yung rules of impeachment, doon rin natin in-amendahan. At nabigyan naman po ng oportunidad. ang bawat isa para magkomento, magbigay ng pahayag, magbigay ng kanilang legal opinion. Pero at that time, wala naman po ang nag-object at inadapt po ng Senado in a legislative body. So the position of the Chair, if there are...

38
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:10,150
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: If there are any comments, any legal opinions, any issues, it should be done through the legislative body of the Senate.

39
00:30:10,390 --> 00:30:48,600
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Mr. President, there is no conflict, Mr. President. With your permission, Mr. President. There's no conflict. If you want to discuss it, in three weeks may session na tayo. So all we have to do today is follow the Constitution. You preside. Then pagdating ng plenary, then we can debate whether we are allowed to amend the Constitution or not. Because, Mr. President, that's why I premised this not as a parliamentary inquiry or as a point of information or whatever we may call it. That's why it's a point of order. A higher point of order than the point of order in the rules is a point of order in the Constitution.

40
00:30:50,510 --> 00:31:00,810
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: The Constitution says it is the Senate President who will preside. So are we saying now, Mr. President, that the rules... can amend the Constitution? Is that the ruling of the Chair?

41
00:31:01,070 --> 00:31:11,330
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Before I make my final ruling on this matter, may I recognize the gentleman from Pampanga, Senator Kiko Pangilinan.

42
00:31:12,470 --> 00:31:14,850
Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan: Thank you, Senate President.

43
00:31:17,090 --> 00:33:07,110
Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Constitution does not provide that the Senate President must preside in cases of impeachment trial. What the Constitution provides is that when the President is undergoing impeachment, going through the trial, is being tried, the Chief Justice must preside. Nowhere in the Constitution in the provisions on public accountability and impeachment does it say that the Senate President must preside when the Vice President is... Or any other impeachable officer. And precisely because of this, and precisely because the Constitution likewise allows Congress, not the impeachment court, Congress to promulgate its own rules, which is what the Senate did in June 3. We promulgated, we proposed amendments to the rules under our rulemaking power. which, by the way, was subsequently ratified when we convened in a special session on June 17. The June 3 journal was ratified unanimously on June 17 when we had our special session. And in the June 3 minutes in the journal, precisely, we approved the amendments to the rules. This was... further ratified on June 17. Therefore, it is considered regular.

44
00:33:07,610 --> 00:34:31,440
Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan: The presumption of regularity now comes into fore. But having said that, Mr. President, the good gentleman from Taguig has brought this matter before the Supreme Court. And we agree with the point earlier raised by the Senate President. This matter should be either discussed in the Senate, in plenary, as a legislative body, or if he has questions which may in fact turn out to be valid, he has brought this matter before the Supreme Court. And therefore, this impeachment court is not the venue for this debate, Mr. President. If there is anyone who is out of order, with due respect, I think the proper process is the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. There is no temporary restraining order. There was a request for a status quo ante-order. It was not granted. And therefore, the presumption of regularity behooves us as an impeachment court to proceed. And finally, Mr. President, allow me to reiterate, the point of order is improper. In fact, the debate on this matter here in the impeachment court is out of order, Mr. President. So,

45
00:34:31,940 --> 00:34:34,680
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: before you decide, Mr. President,

46
00:34:34,780 --> 00:34:36,400
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: the chair has already ruled.

47
00:34:36,440 --> 00:34:45,540
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: The chair has already ruled. Just two minutes. I'll allow

48
00:34:45,540 --> 00:34:50,840
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: the gentleman from Taguig to rebut for two minutes and then we will make the final ruling.

49
00:34:51,040 --> 00:35:09,990
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Before I rebut, I'm from Ateneo Law School and what they taught us there is that You look at the records of the Constitutional Commission, and then pagklaro, klaro. But let's call someone from UP Law to see whether they were taught the same thing. Senator Pia, may I ask that Senator Pia be recognized before I get my two minutes?

50
00:35:09,990 --> 00:35:13,630
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: We recognize the gentlelady from Taguig, Senator Pia Cayetano.

51
00:35:17,950 --> 00:35:19,310
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Thank you, Mr. President.

52
00:35:21,340 --> 00:38:39,220
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: It's not an Ateneo-UP issue, but I'm always happy to stand before our colleagues and share our experience in the UP College of Law. I was prepared to address this to all our members of the Bar in the Senate, but since it is Senator Kiko, my schoolmate, my teammate actually in the UP volleyball varsity team, who stood up, I'll also specifically address it to Senator Kiko. So, dear Senator Kiko and our colleagues in the majority, knowing that you have members in the majority that are lawyers, and for those who are not lawyers, you definitely have consultants or lawyers. Wala naman siguro ni isang senador dito na walang consultant na abogado. Kahit ako abogado, ang dami kong staff na abogado din. Why? Because these are legal issues. We need to talk to the experts. Kung pag-uusapan natin ang mental health, physical health ng Vice President, then of course we will not listen to lawyers. We will listen to doctors, di ba? So this is a legal issue. Let's hear what the lawyers have to say. But let me just quote because I know the Senate President doesn't have time to call on all the lawyers. So if you ask your lawyers and your staff, I'm sure nag-abala sila to look at the constitutional records, to look at the Journal. I'm sure. And if they did not, please take your cell phone now and text your staff. What do the constitutional records of the debate show? Sinabi na po ni Senator Alan Cayetano. You can question him. You can doubt him. Ask your staff. May I ask you, dear colleagues, let's do our job well. The same way when you stand up and you tell me to do my job well and you disagree, I disagree with your point of view, I will listen intently to your point of view. And I'm looking at each one of you because this is our solemn duty. What does the Constitution say? Nakalagay doon, the Chief Justice pag the President. Silent nga po sa iba. So sabi ng iba, at yan ang sinasabi ng Senate President natin na mukhang puwedeng iba. So we looked at what the constitutional framers said. What did they say? Nagdebate na po sila, colleagues. Nagdebate tayo dito. Pag sinabi ng sponsor, ito na yung paliwanag. Yung nag-i-interpellate at nagbibigay ng amendment, sinasabi niya, ah, okay, yun pala ang paliwanag mo, okay na ako. No need to amend. Yun at yun din ang sinabi. Let's place ourselves in that position. Because that happens to us every day. Every day, somebody stands up and says, ano ibig sabihin nito? And the sponsor will explain. Pag hindi maliwanag, sasabihin nung nag-i-interpellate or nag-amend, ay, papa-amend ko kasi hindi maliwanag or I want to improve it. Pero kung nagkaintindihan naman, okay na. Eh yun nga yung binasa. Tanungin n'yo naman po yung staff n'yo. Or let's pause, let's all get a copy. Let's show it.

53
00:38:41,070 --> 00:39:16,730
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Because this is the foundation of this trial na tama yung nakaupong presiding officer. So that's my first point. Mag-abala naman tayo. Read it yourself. Ask your staff to print a copy. In fact, on that note, may ask Senator Alan's staff to print a copy and give it to all our colleagues. Mabilis lang yan. Hindi na yan mapapatagalan. Show it. We can take judicial notice naman po siguro of it. Siguro naman alam na natin ang ibig sabihin ng judicial notice. You can go to the actual records. Nandito na makakuha naman natin yun kung pagdududahan nyo yung ipapaprint ko. So that's my first point.

54
00:39:20,220 --> 00:39:24,320
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: My second point, Mr. President, is addressed to his honor.

55
00:39:25,890 --> 00:40:02,490
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: If his honor will insist that we have to call a regular session, we have to be in session to amend the impeachment rules. E di, tawagan niyo po ang Malacanang. Nagpa-special session naman po siya, diba, with all due respect, to pass the National Orchid Law. To pass, what else? Anong tatlo yun eh? O nga, yun nga, yung waling-waling as National Orchid, ano pa yung dalawa? No, I know, I'm not questioning it. I'm saying that there was a special session called to pass three laws. Naalala ko yung waling-waling because I love it. This is important. O ano pa yung dalawa? Unfortunately, hindi ko na maalala.

56
00:40:04,220 --> 00:40:56,710
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Dalawang naturalization. Sports-minded po tayo. Love po natin yun. Nagkaroon ba ng laban between now and July para mag-special session tayo para doon? Hindi ko alam. But in any case, ito importante to, di ba? E di kung pa-i-insist nyo na yung impeachment amendment na yan kailangan gawin yung special session, e di pa papatawag tayo ng special session. Mukha namang very supportive naman ang malakanyang sa majority. Di ho ba? Pero I take the position that We are in impeachment court. We are already in impeachment court. Therefore, the amendments must happen here. Medyo common sense din naman po yan. And that's my case. Yun lang po. But as soon as the copies come, I will give it to you, colleagues. Look at it. Huwag tayong majority-minority botohan. Ayusin natin yung pagboboto natin dahil pinapanood tayo, pinapaniwalaan tayo, at umaasa sa atin ang taong bayan. Maraming salamat po.

57
00:40:59,750 --> 00:41:07,270
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Again, before I, the Chair, rule, let me acknowledge the former Senate President, Senator Tito Sotto.

58
00:41:07,570 --> 00:41:08,570
Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Thank you, Mr. President.

59
00:41:10,260 --> 00:41:54,560
Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Tama-tama yung sinabi ng distinguished lady from Taguig, tanungin daw yung mga legal staff. Binigay nga sa amin ng legal staff po, eksakto ngayon. Article XI, Section 6, page 154. The Constitution is silent regarding the presiding officer of a Senate impeachment. However, the Constitution expressly provides that the Chief Justice will preside if the President is on trial. O ngayon, yung mga graduate ng Ateneo at saka ng UP. Ito ngayon yung legal maxim: expressio unius est exclusio alterius. In other words, the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another.

60
00:42:01,600 --> 00:42:26,810
Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Ang sinasabi ng publiko ngayon, nanonood sa atin, dapat you should not resort to too many technicalities kasi ang public interest ang iniisip nila rito. They want to expedite the proceedings. They want the trial, not rules. They're interested in the trial, not rules. In the interest of justice, sabi nga nila, sometimes rules are not sacrosanct.

61
00:42:27,430 --> 00:42:44,590
Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: But itong nangyayari ngayon dito, bahay, ang publiko ang importante dito. Where does the Constitution emanate from? From the public. From the people of the Republic. So, disisyonan nyo na ito, Mr. President, para matapos na.

62
00:42:44,710 --> 00:43:06,800
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Once again, let me reiterate the position of the Chair. My humble position is that this matter should be discussed during plenary when the Senate is convened as a legislative body. And may I ask the gentleman from Taguig if he is objecting to this position?

63
00:43:07,490 --> 00:43:13,190
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: I'm objecting that position and will call for a vote. May I explain? I think under the rules, I can explain why I'm asking for a vote.

64
00:43:13,190 --> 00:43:14,290
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: We'll call for a vote first.

65
00:43:15,130 --> 00:43:23,770
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Mr. President, under the rules, I can explain why I'm calling for a vote first so that I can convince them to vote for me.

66
00:43:24,230 --> 00:43:32,830
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: No, under the rules, there's an objection. The vote will proceed without any explanation. And

67
00:43:32,830 --> 00:43:34,630
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: after that, we will allow the...

68
00:43:36,610 --> 00:43:38,750
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: gentleman from Taguig to explain his vote.

69
00:43:39,130 --> 00:43:43,770
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: We call for a division of the House.

70
00:43:44,250 --> 00:43:47,510
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: So those who are Sir

71
00:43:48,180 --> 00:43:55,060
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: President, Sir President, when you object, you're allowed to explain your objection and state your objection.

72
00:43:55,400 --> 00:43:58,040
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Thank you.

73
00:43:59,060 --> 00:44:17,730
Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson: Your Honors, pursuant to Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, as amended, I move to elect Senator-Judge Francis Joseph Guevara Escudero as the presiding officer of this impeachment court.

74
00:44:18,450 --> 00:44:20,970
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Objection, Mr. President, and may I allow to... We proceed, we

75
00:44:20,970 --> 00:44:21,310
Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson: proceed

76
00:44:21,310 --> 00:44:25,590
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: to... Objection, Mr. President, I'm allowed to object and I'm allowed to explain my objection. Yes,

77
00:44:25,590 --> 00:44:26,830
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: you are allowed to object, but we will

78
00:44:26,830 --> 00:44:28,750
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: proceed with the division of the House.

79
00:44:28,750 --> 00:44:29,790
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: No, Mr. President, Mr. President, point of order.

80
00:44:29,490 --> 00:44:37,480
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: So those who are in favor of the... Sir President, you are allowed to explain

81
00:44:37,480 --> 00:44:39,400
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: para makonvince mo nga yung iba.

82
00:44:39,500 --> 00:44:55,140
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Please raise your hand. We will vote by raising of hands. So, those who are in favor of the motion of Senator Lacson electing Senator Chiz Escudero as the Presiding Officer, please raise your hand.

83
00:44:57,870 --> 00:45:00,950
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: The Clerk of Court is directed to count the votes.

84
00:45:30,100 --> 00:45:31,720
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Explain my vote, Mr. President.

85
00:45:32,120 --> 00:45:34,640
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Hold on. Let's allow the Chair to make a ruling.

86
00:45:36,730 --> 00:45:45,750
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Those who are against the motion of Senator Lacson electing Senator Chiz Escudero as the Presiding Officer, please raise your hand.

87
00:46:04,030 --> 00:46:17,180
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: The official count is 12 in favor, 8 against.

88
00:46:19,580 --> 00:46:25,480
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: The majority, those who are in favor, has it.

89
00:46:27,700 --> 00:46:28,460
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: The court

90
00:46:28,460 --> 00:47:02,570
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: resolves to elect Senator Chiz Escudero as presiding officer of the impeachment court. The newly elected presiding officer shall, under the same oath taken on May 18, 2026, immediately assume and exercise all powers, functions, duties, and prerogatives pertaining to or vested in a person presiding over the impeachment trial under the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, as amended, and shall give full effect to the powers inherent in courts under Rule 135, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.

91
00:47:28,030 --> 00:48:35,800
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: goes into due process and fairness. The Latin term that he mentioned was for enumerations. That when there are enumerations at Indica Salidon, in this case, there was a statement that in only one case, it would be the Chief Justice because member of the Constitutional Commission. who became Chief Justice Davide, was going to amend precisely the Constitution to state the Senate President shall preside. But upon explanation by the sponsor that it is understood that it is the Senate President, then it should be the Senate President. And dun sa sinabi ni Senate President Soto that ang gusto ng tao ay mag-umpisa na. Precisely, kanina pa dapat tayo nag-umpisa kung nag-preside ang Senate President. Secondly, this is when you have threshold issues, issues that go into due process fairness, if we're going to say that ang gusto ng tao i-convict na lang, then let's just blurt it out.

92
00:48:38,050 --> 00:49:03,200
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Now, if we're going to say we want a fair trial, let's make sure that every aspect of this trial is fair. So that's why, Mr. President, if you read the rules, The presiding officer shall have the power to make an issue by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, authorized by these rules of the Senate, and make and enforce such other regulations, orders, premises that the Senate may authorize or provide.

93
00:49:04,940 --> 00:49:49,770
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Nandito din, Mr. President, that the Senate President may by himself or, bottom line, Mr. President, pwedeng mag-decide ang Senate President o sa atin. And Mr. President, there are issues that goes into fairness. You know the AMLA will be a witness here. And I have information that the 20 years AMLA records of Senator Escudero and his credit cards and bank accounts were all opened up in the office of the Senate President where members of the Blue Ribbon Committee was here. Then we're going to ask him to preside. So there's a problem. This is my explanation.

94
00:49:50,470 --> 00:49:54,030
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: To the gentleman from Taguig.

95
00:49:54,030 --> 00:49:58,150
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: This is factual and this is my explanation. So I will stop there. With all due

96
00:49:58,150 --> 00:50:07,470
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: respect, your statements are already out of order. It has nothing to do with the topic on hand. And the presiding officer will strike off.

97
00:50:07,670 --> 00:50:09,730
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: It has all to do with this.

98
00:50:09,850 --> 00:50:12,620
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: It has all to do. These statements

99
00:50:12,620 --> 00:50:15,540
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: pertaining to Senator Escudero.

100
00:50:15,620 --> 00:50:24,560
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: I direct the stenographers to strike off these statements. He is the victim here. I'm not doubting him. I'm not doubting he will be fair.

101
00:50:25,300 --> 00:50:28,160
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Do we want a fair trial or not,

102
00:50:28,180 --> 00:50:28,200
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Mr. President? We will suspend the session

103
00:50:28,200 --> 00:50:36,300
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: for a few minutes to request the Presiding Officer, Senator Escudero, to ascend the rostrum. Session

104
00:50:36,300 --> 00:50:36,660
Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: suspended.

105
00:50:36,660 --> 00:50:37,020
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Mr. President.

106
00:57:45,390 --> 00:57:47,630
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: What is the pleasure of Senator Judge Cayetano?

107
00:57:47,950 --> 00:57:49,850
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Mr. President, I'm explaining my vote.

108
00:57:50,090 --> 00:57:51,150
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The lady has two minutes.

109
00:57:51,350 --> 00:59:23,440
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Thank you. Dear colleagues, my explanation includes a reminder to all of you na kung di n'yo kasundo si Alan, malamang kasundo n'yo ako. So, if sarado ang pag-iisip n'yo na si Alan nagpaliwanag, ako naman ang magpapaliwanag. Pagbigyan n'yo naman ako. But what I'm saying is not new from what Senator Alan Cayetano expressed. I have here copies of the constitutional verbatim debate on this provision. And as Senator Alan read, sinabi ni Mr. Monsod: 'Is it not understood that when the President of the Philippines is on trial, it is the only time when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside? Is it necessary to say that the Senate President will preside during all other times?' Ulitin ko yung tanong kasi yun ang tanong natin today. Is it necessary to say in the Constitution that the Senate President will preside during all other times? Ang sagot ni Mr. Davide: 'Mr. Presiding Officer, I precisely presented that because we have a distinction when it comes to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But with that clarification, that in all other cases, it would be the President of the Senate who will preside, I withdraw the amendment.' Kaya clear sa Constitution that in all other cases, the President of the Senate will preside. Hindi ho applicable dito yung expressio unius.

110
00:59:25,000 --> 00:59:44,920
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Hindi ko na-memorize yan kasi I graduated in 1991 and we took that up in 1987. But the phrase is, pag hindi kasama, excluded. Hindi po applicable yun with all due respect to our former Senate President. It is the intention of the framers that matter. I will ask the page to help me distribute this among our colleagues.

111
01:00:06,770 --> 01:00:41,540
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: I have also asked our staff to actually copy. I am environmentally friendly so ayoko sana ng papel. Pero alam ko na hindi po lahat sa atin gumagamit ng electronic gadgets kaya pinapil ko na lang. Pero kailangan ko pakita sa inyo yung mismong nasa journal, yan din yun. Yan din yun, my dear colleagues. Yun lang hiling ko sa inyo, intindihan naman natin yung nandito. Bumoto na! Pero intindihan naman natin kasi this is just the first day. We cannot disregard the Constitution. And I continue, Mr. President.

112
01:00:46,980 --> 01:01:27,060
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: We have enough jurisprudence, more than enough, to explain to us, even in layman's term, what basic legal principles are. And one of the most fundamental principles of constitutional construction states that we give. We give effect to the intents of the framers of the Constitution. With this vote, did we give effect to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution? Sinabi nga eh, Senate President ang magpe-preside. Hindi na siguro napakalaking bagay yun dahil kahit sinong ipalit nyo, maayos naman ang...

113
01:01:28,710 --> 01:01:44,190
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: mga kasama natin sa colleagues, sa colleagues natin maayos naman. Di ho, yun ang point. The point is, what are we required to follow? That's why may constitution. And I will now state for the record a few cases that

114
01:01:46,340 --> 01:02:37,150
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Point out that this is what we are supposed to do: give effect to the Constitution. Lambino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174153. The Supreme Court looked explicitly to the Constitutional Commission deliberations to determine the nature of people's initiative. Because the text was debated, the Court used the framers' explicit intention. I repeat, the Court used the framers' explicit intention revealed in the plenary debates to prevent deceptive or misleading petition processes and establish a stringent full-text requirement. So anong ginawa sa kaso? Tinignan ang intent ng framers of the Constitution. Another case, Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636. God bless his soul. Si Dean Carale was my dean.

115
01:02:40,090 --> 01:02:41,810
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: And Senator Imee's as well.

116
01:02:44,630 --> 01:02:53,870
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Senator Kiko's as well. He was with my father at the University of Michigan. So, pagbigyan n'yo na ako a moment of remembering him.

117
01:02:56,140 --> 01:04:33,880
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: In G.R. No. 91636, the Court resolved a dispute regarding the President's power to make appointments without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The Court examined the historical and textual context of Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution, noting that the clear and express intent of its framers was to exclude presidential appointments from confirmation except for those expressly mentioned. So, balik ko sa kasong ito. What was the clear intention? That the Senate President presides. That is the clear intention. Dear colleagues, umpisa pa lang. I beg all of you, makinig naman tayo, masunod naman tayo kung ano yung sinasabing trabaho natin. The Constitution, the intention of the framers, and then the clear construction. Or another case: Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez. This is a very old case. So yung mga binanggit sa inyo, bago-bago pa yun. Dahil si Dean Carale, buhay pa naman as of the pandemic. So 2000-plus. Ito, 66 Phil. 259. So for lawyers and law students, pag sinabing Philippines, pag yan yung nirecord, alam mo nang 19—ano ba yan? '50s? 1940s? Something like that. Justice Jose Abad Santos articulated the definitive rule: 'The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it.' Dear colleagues, I can stand here and read more cases to all of us.

118
01:04:36,060 --> 01:05:18,980
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: We have law students. We have freshmen. Law students, we have fresh graduate, we have bar reviewees listening to us. Tapos tayo pa lang, hindi natin mabigyan pahalaga ang very clear legal principles. Pati yung prosecution and defense nakikinig. Sana po, huwag niyong abalahin yung oras namin. Bigyan niyo naman kami ng maliwanag. ng mga arguments ninyo because we are willing to listen. Pero, colleagues, patunayan naman natin that we are willing to listen. Hindi yung pagpasok natin, nag-prejudge na tayo. Kasi, sad to say, mukhang gano'n. I tell you, there will be times I probably will not vote with a minority because I believe tama yung sinasabi ng majority.

119
01:05:20,760 --> 01:05:41,560
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Sana po, yun ang pakita natin sa taong bayan. So, hindi ko naabalahin yung time dahil kakaupo pa lang ng bagong presiding officer. Pero, ang dami pang kaso that says, look, At the intent of the framers of the Constitution. And today, we disregarded the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Magandang hapon po. Ganyan ang pag-uumpisa ng hearing na ito.

120
01:05:41,880 --> 01:05:48,780
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We note the remarks of Senator Pia in connection with her explanation of vote. What is the pleasure of Senator-Judge Sotto?

121
01:05:49,600 --> 01:05:52,300
Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: I'd like to explain my vote also, Mr. President. The

122
01:05:52,300 --> 01:05:54,540
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: gentleman may proceed and he has two minutes. I

123
01:05:54,540 --> 01:06:03,740
Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: have one line to say. That's the reason I voted in favor: because the minutes of the Constitutional Commission are merely research source.

124
01:06:07,730 --> 01:06:09,590
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: What is the pleasure of the Honorable Padilla?

125
01:06:16,660 --> 01:06:22,320
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Ginoong... Will the gentleman explain his vote? Opo. The gentleman may proceed. You have two minutes, sir.

126
01:06:22,600 --> 01:06:54,390
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: Maraming salamat po. Ginoong punong tagapamahala. Mga mahal kong kasama, sa loob po ng apat na taon na ako po ay ibinoto ng ating mga kababayan at nagsilbing senador, Ako po ay naging tagapangulo ng Komite ng Constitutional Amendments. At tuwing meron pong pagdinig, ang

127
01:06:55,250 --> 01:07:12,080
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: lagi po naming pinapatawag ay yung mga sumulat ng konstitusyon. Bilang sila po ang nakakaalam kung ano ang puso, ang diwa ng konstitusyon.

128
01:07:16,270 --> 01:07:49,610
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: na kung meron tayong pakikinggan ay iyong creator. Hindi po ba? Tayo naman po lahat ay naniniwala sa Panginoong Diyos. Kaya tayo po ay naniniwala sa salitang creator, tagapaglikha. At ang lumikha po ng konstitusyon ay itong mga taong nabanggit sa ipinamahagi ng ating mahal na senadora. Kahit ano.

129
01:07:51,870 --> 01:08:05,250
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: Malinaw po dito. Nasabi na po sa Ingles ito. Mainam po ay sabihin po natin sa Tagalog upang mas maintindihan po ng ating mga kababayan.

130
01:08:09,780 --> 01:08:33,910
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: Humingi po ako ng tulong sa Google kasi legal terms po ito. Hindi naman po ako nagtapos sa UP. Hindi rin po ako nagtapos sa Ateneo. Nagtapos po ako ng criminology at UP rin, sa University of Prison. Ang sabi po dito, sa Tagalog po, ah:

131
01:08:36,030 --> 01:08:54,400
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: Ginoong Presiding Officer, eksakto ko itong inihain dahil nagkaroon tayo ng pagkakaiba pagdating sa Punong Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema. Ngunit, sa paglilinaw na iyon, na sa lahat,

132
01:08:54,400 --> 01:09:52,500
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: sa lahat ng ibang mga kaso, ay ang Pangulo ng Senado ang mamumuno. Kaya binabawi ko ang nasabing susog. Ang nagsabi po nito ay ang dating Justice, Justice Davide. Ngayon, mga mahal kong kasama at sa ating mga taga-subaybay, ang batas po ay precise. Hindi po ito puwedeng iba-ibahin o baluktutin. Kung ano ang sinabi, lalo ng Saligang Batas, ay sana po ay panghawakan natin. Ngayon, sa loob po ng apat na taon ko dito, lagi pong sinasabi yung tradisyon. Minsan, yung rules na 'yan, nawawala 'yan, eh. Ilang beses na ako naguluhan dito dahil, teka, sundin natin yung tradisyon kaysa yung rules.

133
01:09:54,040 --> 01:09:56,240
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: Dalawang beses na po nagkaroon ng impeachment.

134
01:09:57,820 --> 01:10:00,280
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: Yung unang impeachment, ang

135
01:10:02,200 --> 01:10:10,910
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: nag-preside. ay yung Chief Justice, yung kay Pangulong Estrada. Yung sumunod po,

136
01:10:12,520 --> 01:11:09,020
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: nandito na po ako noon. Ang nag-preside ay ang mahal na Bikolanong kaibigan ko, Senador Chiz Escudero. Yun po kasi yung nasasabi sa Saligang Batas at tradisyon. Yun na po yung nangyari. Ngayon, gusto ko pong tanungin yung mga kasama ko sa majority. Personal na tanong po ito. Nung hinihikayat po akong sumama sa majority, isa lang ang sinabi ko: kung si Senator Chiz Escudero, ang kababayan kong Bikolano, ang gagawing Senate President, lilipat ako sa inyo. Ang hindi ko maintindihan, bakit ngayon pinipilit natin na ang ating presiding officer ay si Chiz Escudero? Eh ba't hindi natin siya ginawang Senate President noon? Yun lang po ang tanong ko. Maraming salamat.

137
01:11:11,470 --> 01:11:14,390
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Is noted. Senator Marcos, what is your pleasure, ma'am?

138
01:11:16,190 --> 01:11:20,650
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The lady may do so. You have two minutes, ma'am. Kindly be mindful of the clock.

139
01:11:21,400 --> 01:13:50,930
Sen. Imee Marcos: Yes, thank you very much. Ang sabi sa atin nung bata tayo, kapag mali ang umpisa, mali na ang lahat na susunod. Ayoko naman magkamali sa umpisa pa lamang na napakahalagang paglilitis na ito. Unang-una, paulit-ulit na nating sinaad na... Ang ating saligang batas ay hindi maaring baluktutin. At napakaklaro nito. At ang sinasabi ng ating Constitution of 1987, Article 11, Section 3, Number 6. All other impeachable officers ang sinasabi, carving out therefore the exception that proves that rule, that the Chief Justice is the single exception and otherwise the presiding officer should be the Senate President. It is the exception that proves the rule. Palibasa na uso ang Latin, may kabaliktaran din sa keynote ni Sen. Soto, expresyo unyus. Exclusio alterius. Palibasa, hindi naman in-exempt. Ibig sabihin na laging dapat ang Senate President ang presiding officer. Ikalawa, nakita naman natin ang mga debate. Ang listahan ng mga sinabi at paliwanag noong dating Chief Justice natin si... Mr. Davide, nung panahon, nung convention, contextual reading and the thorough debate do not allow for any interpretation whatsoever. And we should abide by that. Ikatlo, yung kadudadudang quorum nung June 3 na pinapaliwanag ng aming minority leader na hanggang ngayon nakatenga pa rin. Kung tutuusin, nung sinasabing na amienda, yung Senate... Yung Supreme Court petition ay pending pa. Kaya hindi karapat-dapat na yun ang sundan. Ikalima, it's not the impeachment court but the Senate that amended the rules. Kaya para sa akin, napakaraming dahilan. Huwag sana natin sayangin itong napakalagang responsibilidad natin at huwag mag-umpisa sa mali itong paglilitis. Maraming salamat.

140
01:13:51,250 --> 01:13:57,330
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Senator Marcos. Duly noted and entered into the records the pleasure of Senator Legarda. Senator Judge Legarda, rather.

141
01:14:02,290 --> 01:14:06,950
Sen. Loren Legarda: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Where the Constitution is silent...

142
01:14:06,950 --> 01:14:09,470
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The lady will explain her vote or make a manifestation.

143
01:14:09,470 --> 01:14:10,210
Sen. Loren Legarda: It's a manifestation.

144
01:14:10,710 --> 01:14:12,370
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The lady may proceed with her manifestation.

145
01:14:12,370 --> 01:15:09,990
Sen. Loren Legarda: Thank you. Where the Constitution is silent, the intent of the framers should guide the choice of the presiding officer. Any departure... from the traditional arrangement must be approached with caution as it may place the validity and the legitimacy of the entire impeachment in doubt. Mr. Presiding Officer, I also respectfully place on record that there is a pending challenge before the Supreme Court involving the June 3rd Senate proceedings. including the authority of the body then that adopted Senate Resolution No. 430. This manifestation is made to place on record that we are not yielding our position in the pending case and is without prejudice to the final determination of the Supreme Court. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

146
01:15:12,890 --> 01:15:14,290
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Senator Legarda.

147
01:15:15,560 --> 01:15:18,040
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The Presiding Officer would like to make a statement.

148
01:15:26,220 --> 01:19:32,850
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Sa mga ginagalang akong kapwa, Senator Judge, sa ating mga minamahal na kababayan, sa mga partido sa kaso na kabinbin ngayon sa Senado, isa pong maganda at pinagpalang hapon sa ating lahat. Sa araw na ito, muling gagampanan ng Senado ang isa sa mga pinakasagradong tungkuling iniatas ng Saligang Batas. Ang pagbuo natin bilang isang impeachment court para litisin at husgahan ang pangalawang Pangulo. Kinikilala ng ating Saligang Batas na may mga opisyal na may hawak ng kapangyarihan at... At pananagutan na napakabigat para sa kanila lamang itinakda ang impeachment bilang tanging paraan para sila ay panagutin. Article 11, Section 2 of the Constitution enumerates these officials. The President, the Vice President, the members of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. They are not ordinary public officers. According to the late former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, they hold, quote, the highest and most sensitive offices of government. They may be removed from office only upon conviction for offenses of the highest constitutional gravity, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of the public trust. Impeachment is a means to preserve constitutional government through the removal and disqualification, if so warranted, of an unfit official from a position of public trust. Limang opisyal pa lamang ang na-impeach ng Kamara de Representante sa ating kasaysayan sa ilalim ng 1987 Constitution. Una, si dating Pangulong Joseph Estrada noong 2001 na ang paglilitis ay naungusan ng mga pangyayaring humantong sa EDSA 2. Ikalawa, si Ombudsman Mercy Gutierrez noong 2011 na nagbitiw bago pa man mabuksan ang kanyang paglilitis ng Senado. Ikatlo, Si Chief Justice Renato Corona noong 2011 din na nilitis na patunayang nagkasala at inalis sa tungkulin ng impeachment court bilang punong mahistrado. Ikaapat, si dating COMELEC Chairman Andres Bautista noong 2017 bagamat nagbitiw siya sa pwesto bago pa man mapadala ang articles of impeachment sa Senado. At ikalima, si Vice President Sara Duterte noong 2025. Subalit ang nasabing articles of impeachment ay diniklara ng Korte Suprema ng null and void ab initio kung kaya't ito ay in-archive ng Senado. Siya ay muling na-impeach sa kasalukuyang taon at ngayon inaharap sa paglilitis na ito. Ipinakikita lamang na maikling tala na ito na ang impeachment ay hindi isang pangkaraniwang kaganapan. Turing nga ng Korte Suprema, quote, It is the most difficult and cumbersome mode of removing a public officer from office. Subalit, ang paglilitis na ito ay hindi lamang hindi pangkaraniwan. Ito ay tunay na bukod tangi. Bakit? Una, si Vice Presidente Sara Duterte ang kauna-unahang opisyal na dalawang beses na na-impeach ng mababang kapulungan. Pangalawa, Siya ang kauna-unahang vicepresidente na haharap sa paglilitis ng isang impeachment court at pangalawang opisyal lamang na halal ng sambayanan na sasailalim sa prosesong ito. Pangatlo, siya ay hinahalal ng may pinakamalaking mandatong pinagkaloob ng sambayanang Pilipino sa sino mang kandidato sa ating kasaysayan. Mahigit 32 milyon o 61% ng kabuuang boto. para sa ikalawang Pangulo. Pangapat, ang Articles of Impeachment laban sa kanya ay inendorso ng 277 na miyembro na kumakatawan sa ating mga mamamayan mula sa iba't ibang distrito at sektor at ng ating bansa na katumbas ay mahigit 80% ng kabuuan ng Kamara de Representantes.

149
01:19:56,550 --> 01:21:24,960
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: May therefore caution my fellow senator judges, the prosecutors. the respondent and their respective counsels and witnesses, to refrain from making any comments and disclosures to the public pertaining to the merits of this trial as mandated by the impeachment rules itself. Let us heed the words of the Supreme Court that said, Impeachment is not a chance to settle political scores. It is not a stage for political theater or personal attacks. Because when the focus shifts to the person rather than the alleged wrongdoing, the process loses its integrity. As Presiding Officer, I shall do my part to uphold the fairness and integrity of this process and shall see it through to its proper conclusion. At this point, I would like to thank my colleagues for their trust and confidence. I did not seek nor did I ask for this responsibility, but neither will I shirk from fulfilling this duty without fear or favor. This now brings me... to the threshold questions that will guide the conduct of this trial and the rulings of the Chair. First, what is the number of votes needed to convict the respondent? Second, what is the quantum of proof required to sustain a judgment of conviction or acquittal in these proceedings? Third, how strictly or liberally will this Court apply the rules in resolving questions of procedure and evidence? On the first issue,

150
01:21:26,610 --> 01:27:06,700
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The Constitution provides that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. With 24 members of the Senate, a literal interpretation of this means that conviction requires the affirmative vote of at least 16 senator-judges. This literal interpretation finds direct support in the 2000 case of Bayan v. Zamora, which concerned the Senate's compliance with the two-thirds vote required to concur in a treaty. Despite having only 23 incumbent senators at that time, then Senator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected as Vice President, therefore there were only 23 senators. The Court held. The Charter provides that the Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators. Without a tinge of doubt, two-thirds of the figure or not less than 16 members is an unquestionable compliance with the requisite number of votes mentioned in Section 21 of Article 7. It behooves therefore all of us to observe the same fidelity with the Constitution in this trial, which affects not only the mere ratification of a treaty, but more so affects the substantial rights of the respondent as well as the sovereign will of the people as expressed in the overwhelming mandate given to her. This is the prevailing law today and whether we agree with it or not, we must abide by it. However, those who disagree are not without recourse because this is without prejudice to the right of any party who holds a different view to seek judicial relief. And should the Supreme Court who possesses the sole authority to interpret the Constitution by virtue of its power of judicial review, render a different ruling on this question other than what the Chair has stated. This Court and this representation shall faithfully abide by that ruling of the Supreme Court. On the question of quantum of proof, Given that impeachment is a sui generis constitutional proceedings, the standards of proof that govern administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings do not apply. However, this does not mean that Senator judges shall rely solely on their conscience in deciding this case. No less that the Supreme Court also said that, quote, decisions regarding whether to acquit or convict must be based upon clear charges supported by sufficiently clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, let me be clear that the burden of proof in these proceedings rests upon the prosecution. It does not and will not shift. The respondent is afforded the presumption of innocence and has no obligation to disprove the charges against her. Finally, we turn to the application of the rules of court in these proceedings. Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Courts provide that the rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote Their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. We are also guided by the Supreme Court's Benchbook for Trial Judges, which reflects a long-standing principle of adjudication. In case of honest doubt about the admissibility of evidence, it is a better policy to rule in favor of admission and let the senator-judges decide whether to give it little or no weight. When deciding upon the case in the final outcome. But let me be clear. A liberal construction of the rules is not a license to ambush the opposing party, bypass due process, or introduce unverified evidence that would prejudice the fair and orderly conduct of this trial. Accordingly, consistent with the demands of due process, fair play, and the orderly administration of justice, the Chair will construe the rules liberally so that, number one, The prosecutors may be able to adequately present their case. That the respondent may be able to rigorously test it. Number three, that the senator judges may be able to weigh the evidence for themselves. And fourth, so that the Filipino people may hear the whole and impartial truth regarding the allegations against the Vice President. Let us remember what our oath requires us to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. Hindi po tayo nandito upang itaguyod ang anumang pampolitikal na adyenda. Hindi tayo narito upang paglingkuran ng kagustuhan ng alinmang panig. Narito tayo upang alamin ang katotohanan at sa pamamagitan nito, mapairal ang ustisyang walang kinikilingan. Ang tungkulin natin bilang mga hukom ay hindi maaaring talikuran. Sa gitna nito, batid ko ang mga problema ang kinakaharap ng ating bayan na patuloy natin dapat pa rin pagtuunan ang buong pansin at hanapan ng solusyon. Tayo ay mga senador bago tayo umupo bilang mga hukom at mananatili tayong mga senador na patuloy na magsusumikap na tugunan ang mga pangailangan ng ating mga kababayan bilang Senado at hindi mababago ito. Kaya't aking hiling at dalangin na huwag sana malunod ang diwa ng pagkakaisang nagbigis sa atin ganumang katindi ang mga debate at pagtatalo sa hukumang ito. Dahil anuman na magiging kalabasan ang paglilitis na ito, Laging kinakailangan ang Senado ang nagkakaisa. Dalangin ko po na sana pagkalubad tayo ng katatagan, karunungan, pagpapakumbaba at pagunawa upang magampan na nating lahat ang ating tungkulin bilang mga hukom. Pagpalayan na po lahat, lahat sana tayo ng pong may kapal. Maraming salamat at magandang hapon po.

151
01:27:17,320 --> 01:27:18,940
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Sir Presiding Officer. Before

152
01:27:18,940 --> 01:27:37,580
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: we continue, Chair would like to make a record that Senator Joel Villanueva will insert his explanation of vote. into the records. If there are no objections, chair dispenses with the reading of the minutes of the Journal of the May 18 Proceedings 2026 and consider the same as approved.

153
01:27:39,610 --> 01:27:40,630
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: On the motion?

154
01:27:42,410 --> 01:27:46,250
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: There being no objection, Journal is hereby approved. Senator Cayetano?

155
01:27:46,590 --> 01:28:32,930
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Sir President, let me thank you and just make the manifestation that this representation believes that it is a threshold issue, the number of senators to convict and two-thirds the logical, fair, that would give justice to the Constitution 16. So I thank you for that statement. And as you mentioned, it is a statement of the court, not only of the presiding officer because... Napaka-importante na sa umpisa pa lang, alam na ng prosecution at alam na ng depensa kung ilan. Having said that, Mr. President, as to the issue of the presiding officer, not to take up more time, I'd like to register a continuing objection. But instead of giving my arguments, may I submit it in writing.

156
01:28:35,070 --> 01:28:43,970
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: saying that violation of the Constitution is not a technicality. But if our dear colleagues would allow, we will just submit it in writing, Mr. President. Whoever wants to join.

157
01:28:44,030 --> 01:28:53,990
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The continuing objection of the gentleman is noted and he may so submit his extended written explanation in writing for the record. Senator Cayetano.

158
01:28:54,480 --> 01:28:58,720
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few administrative matters with your indulgence, dear colleagues.

159
01:28:59,060 --> 01:28:59,680
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The lady may proceed.

160
01:28:59,900 --> 01:29:16,160
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Thank you. I read that we have rules for our... resource panel and also our prosecution and defense that no drinks and food allowed may I respectfully request that they be allowed to have water. It's a basic human right naman siguro na makainom ng tubig.

161
01:29:17,820 --> 01:30:14,440
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: I read something. I'm just saying. I saw it in the rules. I'm making clear because Knowing them, they will follow our rules and I think it's not right to not allow drinks. And then, there may be some who are pre-diabetic or diabetic and need to eat something. So, if they have to have crackers or whatever it is that they need to have, I think we should allow them to do that, Mr. President. Sama-sama ko na yung rules ko, ha? And then they should also be allowed to have a bathroom break. I don't want them to also may ibang klaseng sakit naman yung hindi nakakapunta sa banyo. So may automatically be allowed. I think they're responsible enough to, they're a whole team. There's like a dozen of them here. And then finally, smoking is, sitting is the new smoking. May we also allow them without them having to ask for permission to stand up. in the back and to stretch their legs because it is it is not healthy to be sitting down for two three four hours and i think our hearings will go on for a long time so that's my humble submission uh for the uh for the health and wellness of our prosecution and defense panel thank you mr president

162
01:30:14,440 --> 01:30:18,480
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: noted and we will discuss the matter with the parties senator yes

163
01:30:21,260 --> 01:30:49,020
Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan: mr president uh if i may be likewise allowed to submit a written explanation of my vote particularly on the matter of referring uh to the constitutional commission when uh the debates of the constitutional commission mr president where i believe there is a contrary opinion which the supreme court in fact ruled in previous rulings uh chavez the chavez case mr president for

164
01:30:49,020 --> 01:31:00,560
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: the records noted the gentleman may do so if there are no other matters we now proceed to trial the clerk of court will please call the case before this impeachment court

165
01:31:02,540 --> 01:31:10,960
Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: Case number 004-2026. In the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

166
01:31:11,980 --> 01:31:13,280
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Appearances for the prosecution.

167
01:31:20,630 --> 01:31:36,140
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Good afternoon, Your Honors. We are 11 House prosecutors and 15 private prosecutors. I am Representative Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro, appearing for the prosecution. We are ready, Your Honor.

168
01:31:36,810 --> 01:31:44,350
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: May we get the names of the other panel of prosecutors as well as the counsel for prosecutors one by one for the record.

169
01:31:50,170 --> 01:32:06,670
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Good afternoon, if Your Honors please. We have already submitted the names of the public and private prosecutors who have formally entered their appearance. Good afternoon,

170
01:32:10,980 --> 01:32:20,370
Rep. Leila M. de Lima: Your Honors. I am Representative Leila de Lima from the Mamamayang Liberal, or ML, Party-list, respectfully appearing as public prosecutor. We’re ready.

171
01:32:20,670 --> 01:32:36,800
Rep. Joel R. Chua: Good Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Congressman Joel Chua, respectfully appearing as public prosecutor, representing the Third District of Manila.

172
01:32:39,930 --> 01:32:43,990
Rep. Arlene “Kaka” J. Bag-ao: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Arlene “Kaka”

173
01:32:43,990 --> 01:32:49,430
Rep. Arlene “Kaka” J. Bag-ao: Bag-ao from Dinagat Islands, respectfully appearing as public prosecutor. Ready, Your Honor.

174
01:32:52,730 --> 01:33:01,070
Rep. Lorenz R. Defensor: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Representative Lorenz R. Defensor from the Third District of Iloilo, respectfully appearing as public prosecutor.

175
01:33:05,080 --> 01:33:06,940
Rep. Jonathan Keith T. Flores: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Representative

176
01:33:06,940 --> 01:33:11,500
Rep. Jonathan Keith T. Flores: Jonathan Keith T. Flores of the Second District of Bukidnon as public prosecutor.

177
01:33:14,090 --> 01:33:21,970
Rep. Ysabel Maria J. Zamora: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Representative Ysabel Maria J. Zamora from the Lone District of San Juan City as public prosecutor.

178
01:33:24,400 --> 01:33:30,460
Rep. Terry L. Ridon: Good afternoon. Representative Terry L. Ridon of Bicol Saro Party-list. We are ready, Your Honor. Good afternoon,

179
01:33:32,860 --> 01:33:38,300
Rep. Ramon Rodrigo D. Gutierrez: Your Honors. Representative Ramon Rodrigo D. Gutierrez of 1-Rider Party-list, respectfully entering appearance for the public prosecution.

180
01:33:42,050 --> 01:33:49,910
Rep. Lordan G. Suan: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Representative Lordan G. Suan of the First District of Cagayan de Oro City, respectfully appearing for the prosecution.

181
01:33:51,040 --> 01:34:16,510
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: For the record and for the information of our prosecutors, the term used in our rules for the public prosecutors as you so mentioned should be panel of prosecutors of the house of representatives and in so far as i've been hearing the term private prosecutors the private lawyers will be referred to as counsel for the prosecutors um you may proceed good

182
01:34:20,380 --> 01:34:23,280
Atty. Arnold Labay: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I’m Attorney Arnold Labay.

183
01:34:36,080 --> 01:34:49,540
Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I’m Attorney Lorna Patajo-Kapunan, counsel for the prosecutors under the control and supervision of the panel of prosecutors from the House.

184
01:34:58,570 --> 01:35:18,920
Atty. Amando Virgil D. Ligutan: Attorney Amando Virgil D. Ligutan of Sapayan, Lim, Alvarez & Ligutan Law Offices, or SALiGAL Law, from Cebu City. We are under the direct control and supervision of our honorable prosecutors from the House of Representatives. Ready, Your Honor.

185
01:35:29,130 --> 01:35:40,470
Atty. Mae Sancho Divinagracia: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Mae Sancho Divinagracia of the Co, Nazario, Velasco-Catera & Divinagracia Law Offices, and I am respectfully entering my appearance as counsel for the prosecutors.

186
01:35:51,830 --> 01:36:02,970
Atty. Lino Chris Kapunan: Your Honors, good afternoon. I’m Attorney Lino Chris Kapunan, respectfully appearing as counsel for the prosecutors, acting under the direct control and supervision of the panel of prosecutors of the House of Representatives.

187
01:36:13,300 --> 01:36:23,510
Atty. Sonya Margarita Benemerito-Castillo: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Attorney Sonya Castillo, private prosecutor, under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutors. We are ready, Your Honor.

188
01:36:34,790 --> 01:36:45,480
Atty. Deanna Melissa Lorenzo-Singian: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Attorney Deanna Melissa Lorenzo-Singian, counsel for the prosecutors. We are ready, Your Honor.

189
01:36:58,430 --> 01:37:08,050
Atty. Marforth T. Fua: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I’m Attorney Marforth T. Fua, appearing as counsel for the panel of prosecutors. We are ready, Your Honor.

190
01:37:19,880 --> 01:37:26,300
Atty. Erwin G. Matib: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Attorney Erwin G. Matib, respectfully appearing as counsel for the prosecutors. We are ready.

191
01:37:35,100 --> 01:37:43,860
Atty. Justine Anne Lamarca: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I’m Attorney Justine Anne Lamarca, respectfully entering my appearance as counsel for the prosecutors. We

192
01:37:43,860 --> 01:37:44,520
Atty. Justine Anne Lamarca: are ready, Your Honors.

193
01:37:51,910 --> 01:38:05,810
Atty. James Bryan Ibrahim A. Alih: Good afternoon, Your Honors. With respect, James Bryan Ibrahim A. Alih of PECABAR Law, Ponce Enrile Reyes & Manalastas Law Offices, appearing as counsel for the prosecutors. We’re ready to proceed today, Your Honor.

194
01:38:14,640 --> 01:38:27,340
Atty. Reynaldo Robles: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Attorney Reynaldo Robles of the law firm of Chan Robles & Associates, appearing as counsel for the prosecutors under the control and supervision of the public prosecutors. Ready, Your Honor.

195
01:38:27,340 --> 01:38:44,010
Atty. Bettina Nepomuceno Zamora: good Good afternoon, Your Honors. Bettina Nepomuceno Zamora, respectfully appearing as counsel for the prosecutors. We are ready.

196
01:38:51,280 --> 01:38:58,020
Atty. Theodore Te: May it please the Court, Attorney Theodore Te, appearing as counsel and under the control and supervision of the House panel of prosecutors.

197
01:39:06,630 --> 01:39:18,810
Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr.: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Attorney Benjamin Tolosa Jr., respectfully appearing as counsel for the prosecutors, acting under the direct control and supervision of the prosecution. We are ready, Your Honors.

198
01:39:23,600 --> 01:39:38,670
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: No other entry of appearances? That's it? How many in all, Representative Luistro? Eleven on the part of the House insofar as the panel of prosecutors is concerned, and?

199
01:39:38,870 --> 01:39:54,070
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: We understand, Your Honor, that only 13 private prosecutors entered their appearance today. Nevertheless, Your Honor, as manifested by the Honorable Diokno, a written entry of appearance has been filed already with the Honorable Impeachment Court.

200
01:39:54,450 --> 01:40:04,630
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Nevertheless, as they appear or will be participating in the trial, kindly inform them to enter their formal appearance. during the trial. Your

201
01:40:04,630 --> 01:40:28,040
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Honor, the entire 15 private prosecutors have entered their written, have filed already their written entry of appearance with the impeachment court. The articles of impeachment will be presented by four separate teams, Your Honor. That explains why the House prosecutors or the panel of prosecutors are joined by 15 private prosecutors, Your Honor.

202
01:40:28,160 --> 01:40:34,520
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Noted. Thank you, ma'am. Senator Cayetano, what is the pleasure of the lady from Taguig?

203
01:40:34,900 --> 01:40:51,300
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Yes, Mr. President, I just have a question for the prosecution panel. I understand that there is no requirement for the members of the House who form part of the prosecution to be lawyers. But may I know if they are all lawyers and if some are not, may we know who are not lawyers? Thank you.

204
01:40:51,780 --> 01:40:57,540
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Your Honor, all the 11 House prosecutors are members of the legal profession.

205
01:41:01,390 --> 01:41:03,850
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Does that satisfy the Senator Judge?

206
01:41:05,510 --> 01:41:11,830
Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Yes, I was just curious, Mr. President, because it's not a requirement, so I was just curious if, in fact, they are lawyers. Thank you.

207
01:41:11,970 --> 01:41:15,270
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Duly noted. The response of the lead prosecutor is duly noted.

208
01:41:15,710 --> 01:41:19,330
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Your Honor, may I just enter a correction to the earlier manifestation?

209
01:41:19,750 --> 01:41:20,330
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The lady may proceed.

210
01:41:20,630 --> 01:41:33,890
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Instead of 13, 14 private prosecutors are able to enter their appearance today. Nonetheless. All the 15 have filed their written entry of appearance with the impeachment court, Your Honor.

211
01:41:34,290 --> 01:41:37,230
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Noted. Appearances for the respondent.

212
01:41:43,410 --> 01:41:58,470
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Sheila C. Sison, respectfully appearing for Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte. With the permission of the court, my co-counsel will enter their respective appearances.

213
01:42:01,830 --> 01:42:02,710
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You may proceed.

214
01:42:03,410 --> 01:42:05,190
Atty. Gregorio Y. Narvasa II: Gregorio Y. Narvasa II.

215
01:42:12,060 --> 01:42:14,420
Atty. Kristine R. Ferrer: Kristine R. Ferrer for the Vice President.

216
01:42:17,170 --> 01:42:20,590
Atty. Michael Wesley Poa: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Michael Wesley Poa for the Vice President.

217
01:42:23,480 --> 01:42:27,640
Atty. Carlo Joaquin T. Narvasa: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Carlo Joaquin T. Narvaza for the Vice President.

218
01:42:30,620 --> 01:42:32,020
Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Good afternoon, Your Honors.

219
01:42:32,200 --> 01:42:34,640
Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I am Mark C. Vinluan for the Vice President.

220
01:42:36,770 --> 01:42:40,950
Atty. Justin Nicol B. Gular: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Justin Nicol B. Gular for the Vice President.

221
01:42:43,360 --> 01:42:47,540
Atty. Lindon Miguel C. Bacquel: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Lindon Miguel C. Bacquel for the Vice President.

222
01:42:50,730 --> 01:42:54,790
Atty. Ralph B. Bodota: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am Ralph Borja Bodota for the Vice President.

223
01:42:57,260 --> 01:43:01,360
Atty. Roberto N. Batungbacal: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Roberto N. Batungbacal for the Vice President.

224
01:43:03,760 --> 01:43:07,980
Atty. David Ronell M. Golla VII: Good afternoon, Your Honors. David Ronell M. Golla VII for the Vice President.

225
01:43:10,720 --> 01:43:14,700
Atty. Karol Grace G. Oroceo: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Karol Grace G. Oroceo for the Vice President.

226
01:43:17,190 --> 01:43:20,430
Atty. Clarlaine F. Radoc: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Clarlaine F. Radoc for the Vice President.

227
01:43:22,030 --> 01:43:25,970
Atty. Francesca Marie V. Flores: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Francesca Marie V. Flores for the Vice President.

228
01:43:27,860 --> 01:43:32,360
Atty. Miguel Carlos Albar Fernandez: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Miguel Carlos Albar Fernandez for the Vice President.

229
01:43:35,790 --> 01:43:52,750
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Chair notes the entry of appearance of the counsels for respondent Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte. And the Chair likewise notes that the Vice President is not physically present, but represented more than adequately by her counsels who entered their appearance.

230
01:43:55,090 --> 01:45:13,290
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: On May 19, 2026, the court pursuant to Rule 7 of our rules issued a summons to Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte to answer to the articles of impeachment. On May 20, 2026, the Sergeant-at-Arms served the summons on the Vice President and made a return of service under oath before the Secretary of the Senate. Let the return be entered at large into the records pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials. So ordered. Likewise, the court received pleadings, comments, manifestations filed by the parties. All such pleadings, comments, manifestations, and requests filed by the parties, as well as all issuances and orders of the clerk. as well as the clerk of court made through the presiding officer are hereby deemed read into the records of the case. So ordered. At this juncture, the chair would like to direct the parties to prepare for their opening statements. We will start with the prosecution. May I know from the prosecution who will deliver the opening statement and from the respondent who will deliver the opening statement? Under our rules, only one lawyer shall deliver the opening statement for either side. I presume, Representative Luistro, you will deliver for the prosecution and on the part of the respondent?

231
01:45:14,130 --> 01:45:16,890
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: I will deliver the opening statement for the defense, Your Honor.

232
01:45:18,380 --> 01:45:32,460
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Representative Luistro from the panel of prosecutors of the House of Representatives is now recognized to deliver her opening statement for the prosecution. You may proceed, ma'am, and you have 15 minutes.

233
01:45:32,820 --> 01:46:58,170
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Your Honor, before I proceed. The prosecution respectfully moves for the reading of the four articles of impeachment and the entry of the corresponding answer or plea for each article of impeachment, Your Honor. This is consistent with the Senate Rules on Impeachment, particularly Rule 7, the last paragraph of which mentions failure to appear, failure of the lawyer to appear, and failure to file an answer. There should be an entry of a plea of not guilty. Likewise, Your Honor, under Rule 9 of the Senate Rules on Impeachment, which says that the person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him or her, it was likewise provided that the name of the person appearing on behalf of the respondent should be entered into the record. And by the answer, Your Honor, it is humbly believed that it pertains to the particular plea of whether guilty or not guilty of the respondent. Likewise, Your Honor, under Rule 21, the

234
01:47:00,000 --> 01:47:35,210
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: trial of all the articles of impeachment shall be completed before the Senators vote. on the final question of whether or not the impeachment is sustained. It is gleaned from these rules, Your Honor, that the senators will be voting on a per-article basis, Your Honor. And that is why it is the humble submission of the prosecution that there should be reading of the article and entry of the particular plea per article, Your Honor. This likewise, Your Honor, manifests our complete adherence to the mandate of the Constitution.

235
01:47:42,970 --> 01:48:49,650
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Likewise, Your Honor, it upholds due process not only of the respondent but also of the Filipino people. Sa pagbasa po ng mga artikulo ng impeachment, she will be informed of the nature of the accusation against her bago pa po siya sumagot whether she is guilty or not guilty, Your Honor. Likewise, Your Honor, ang apat na artikulo po ng impeachment ay nakabase sa iba't ibang aligasyon ng facts at iba't ibang nature of accusation or cause of action, Your Honor. And with that, Your Honor, it is perceived that there is a possibility that the plea of the respondent to each and every article will be different from one another, Your Honor. And lastly, Your Honor, this is consistent with the Senate rules on impeachment because the senator judges, the honorable senator judges, Your Honor, will be voting on a per-article basis after the conclusion of the trial of this impeachment case, Your Honor.

236
01:48:50,790 --> 01:48:59,740
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The Chair will respond. Unless the counsel for respondent would like to... Say something about the motion of the distinguished lead prosecutor.

237
01:49:00,080 --> 01:49:02,720
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Yes, Your Honor, may I comment?

238
01:49:02,720 --> 01:49:05,350
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The lady may proceed.

239
01:49:05,350 --> 01:49:10,630
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Before the presiding officer can rule on the motion or request of the lead prosecutor.

240
01:49:10,630 --> 01:49:21,180
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: But before I give my comment, may I just clarify if the lead prosecutor is now making a motion to arraign the respondent accused?

241
01:49:22,970 --> 01:49:31,890
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Your Honor, whether this is arraignment or otherwise, the motion of the prosecution is very much consistent with the Senate rules on impeachment. I

242
01:49:31,890 --> 01:49:33,870
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: think the question, Your Honor, is very simple.

243
01:49:33,950 --> 01:49:34,290
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: As I have

244
01:49:34,290 --> 01:49:40,010
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: mentioned, Your Honor, Rule 7 is the lead prosecutor requesting

245
01:49:40,010 --> 01:49:43,090
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: for the

246
01:49:43,090 --> 01:49:44,490
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: respondent accused to be arraigned, Your Honor.

247
01:49:44,490 --> 01:49:45,200
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Counsel for respondent, kindly make your comments and avoid asking questions from the counsel for the prosecutor. We will recognize

248
01:49:45,200 --> 01:50:02,660
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: the counsel for respondent for comments on the motion and the manifestations made by the lead prosecutor for the House. You may proceed, ma'am.

249
01:50:02,660 --> 01:53:48,910
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Thank you, Your Honor. I believe I have a standing question to the lead prosecutor, and I would like to ask her for the legal basis for requiring the respondent to be arraigned today because, Your Honor, I note that in her request earlier and manifestations given for the respondent to be arraigned today, she cited Rule 7, Rule 9, and Rule 21. However, in Rule 7, it very clearly states that if the person impeached after service shall fail to appear either in person or by counsel on the day so fixed or appearing shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed nevertheless as upon a plea of not guilty. Well, this rule is clear. It does not talk about any arraignment. And if we take a look at this sentence, everything here has been satisfied. The respondent accused is here, has attended through counsel. She may not be in person, but the notice given to the defense is that she may appear through counsel. Second thing is that the respondent accused was also able to file her answer, and so Rule 7 does not support the request of the lead prosecutor that the respondent accused be arraigned today. Now, on the matter of Article 9, counsel also said, also say that the person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him or her. And if he or she appears or any person for him or her, the appearance shall be recorded stating particularly if by himself or by agent or counsel naming the person appearing in the capacity in which he or she appears. If he or she does not appear either personally or by agent or counsel, the same shall be recorded. And for all intents and purposes, respondent is present today through counsel. There is also nothing in Rule 9 that requires the reading of a 23-page Articles of Impeachment, which will be a waste of judicial time. Finally, under Rule 21, Your Honor, may I just correct the manifestation earlier by counsel because it would seem to me, unless a reading of the transcript would... uh, say that I'm mistaken, but I seem to have heard the lead prosecutor claim that the voting on the articles of impeachment will be per article. Well, that's true, but the first sentence of Rule 21 says the trial of all the articles of impeachment shall first be completed before the senators vote on the final question on whether or not the impeachment is sustained. Now, honestly, I do not see how Rule 21 is related to the motion now being requested or propounded by the lead prosecutor. And at any rate, Your Honor, given that the respondent is represented by her counsel today, and this is consistent, her appearance is consistent with the notice given and in accordance with the rules of procedure of this court, then we can enter her plea on her behalf.

250
01:53:50,140 --> 01:55:03,800
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The arguments of the parties are duly noted. Chair will now make its ruling. The articles of impeachment were deemed read and spread into the records when it was referred by the Senate to the Committee on Justice for the proper issuance of summons. And a plea of not guilty will only be entered in accordance with our rules in behalf of the Vice President if she does not file an answer. But in this case, she has filed an answer and in fact has appeared through counsel. Insofar as the reading of the articles of impeachment is concerned, it will be done. At the final resolution of this case, when it is put to a vote by the senator judges, where each article of impeachment will be read before a vote shall be taken thereon. For those reasons, the motion is denied and the lead prosecutor, Representative Luistro, may proceed with her opening statement. Kindly be mindful of the clock and before recognizing you, ma'am, may I remind the counsel for the parties to kindly address the chair with respect to anything and everything they want or wish to say before the court and not to address each other. The lady may proceed. Representative Luistro, you are recognized and you have 15 minutes for your opening remarks.

251
01:55:04,160 --> 01:55:05,280
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: We thank the court, Your Honor.

252
01:55:10,280 --> 01:55:45,230
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Honorable Chiz Escudero, the Honorable Senate President, Honorable Win Gatchalian, to our distinguished Senator Judges, to our beloved countrymen, whether inside or outside, to those who are watching on television, on cell phones or on the radio, wherever the world may be, you are here.

253
01:55:47,790 --> 01:55:53,840
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Many Filipinos are asking today, why is this process so important?

254
01:55:56,420 --> 01:56:01,640
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Ano ang kaugnayan nito sa buhay ng ordinaryong Pilipino?

255
01:56:03,200 --> 01:58:07,010
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Lubos po naming nauunawaan ang mga tanong na yan. Sa katunayan, may isang driver na nagtatanong paano sasapat ang kita sa pasada upang mapakain niya ang kanyang pamilya. May isang OFW na nagtatanong hanggang kailan kailangan lumayo. upang mapaaral niya ang kanyang mga anak. May isang guro na nagtatanong paano pagkakasyahin ang kanyang sahod sa dami ng utang na hinuhulugan. May isang manggagawa na nagtatanong hanggang kailan magtitiis sa pansamantalang trabaho at kakarampot na sweldo. Sa unang tingin, maaring sabihin na malayo sa buhay nila ang paglilitis na ito. Ngunit hindi, hindi po sapagkat ang usapin ngayon ay patungkol sa isang bagay na pag-aari nilang lahat. Ang kanilang pera, ang kanilang tiwala, ang kanilang karapatan na maningil ng pananagutan mula sa mga pinuno na kanilang pinagkatiwalaan. Kapag ang isang empleyado ay nagkamali ng paggamit ng pera ng kumpanya, Siya ay pinagpapaliwanag. Kapag ang isang barangay treasurer hindi maipaliwanag ang nawawalang pondo, siya ay iniimbestigahan. Kapag ang isang principal ay naglustay ng pera ng bayan, kahit limang libo lang yan, siya ay pinaparusahan. Natural lamang na magtanong ang sambayanan kung ang ordinaryong Pilipino ay pinapanagot.

256
01:58:08,810 --> 01:58:40,580
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Bakit hindi ang pinakamakapangyarihang opisyal ng pamahalaan? Ito ang dahilan kung bakit mahalaga ang paglilitis na ito. Hindi upang usigin ang isang tao. Hindi upang maghiganti sa kalaban. Hindi upang manalo sa politika. Kundi upang sagutin ang isang tanong na napakahalaga sa kinabukasan ng ating Republika.

257
01:58:42,090 --> 01:58:45,970
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: May saysay pa ba ang pananagutan sa ating bansa

258
01:58:48,180 --> 01:59:04,070
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: sapagkat ang kasong ito ay higit at lampas sa sino mang opisyal, higit at lampas sa anumang partido, higit at lampas sa alinmang administrasyon.

259
01:59:06,310 --> 01:59:51,110
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Your Honors, the framers of the Constitution understood that there may come a day when extraordinary power would be entrusted to extraordinary office. They also understood that there may come a day when trust would be broken. And that is why they gave the House of Representatives the power to impeach and the Senate the duty to judge, not to punish political opponents, not to settle political scores, but to protect. the Republic itself.

260
01:59:53,000 --> 02:01:04,090
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: That is why the Constitution declares public office is a public trust. Ang kapangyarihan ay hindi pag-aari ng sino mang opisyal. Hiram lamang ito sa taong bayan. At ito ang dahilan kung bakit naririto tayo ngayon. Your Honors, the prosecution will present exactly what the Constitution requires. Evidence. Hindi chismis. Hindi hakahaka. Hindi propaganda at lalong hindi SOCMED narrative. Evidence, official records, financial documents, government reports, video recording, statements under oath, independent findings of institutions created by law. Mga dokumento na hindi bumoboto. Mga records na walang partido.

261
02:01:05,740 --> 02:01:17,920
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Mga katotohanan na walang kulay pampolitika. Sa unang tingin, maaring magmukhang magkakahiwalay ang four articles of impeachment.

262
02:01:19,460 --> 02:01:55,010
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Confidential fund, unexplained wealth, bribery and corruption, threat against constitutional order. But these are not four separate stories. These are four chapters of the same story. Story about power exercised without accountability. Story about public trust betrayed. Story about public office that stopped answering to the public. On the first article of impeachment,

263
02:01:55,350 --> 02:02:15,500
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: the evidence will show that more than 612 million pesos in confidential fund entrusted to the office of the Vice President and the Department of Education were disbursed. Transferred and liquidated under circumstances that cannot withstand scrutiny.

264
02:02:17,210 --> 02:02:39,340
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: 612 million pesos. Hindi ito pera ng gobyerno. Pera ito ng sambayanan. Pera ng manggagawa. Pera ng magsasaka. Pera ng OFW. Pera ng guro. Pera ng bawat Pilipino na nagpabayad ng buwis at nagtitiwala na gagamitin ito ng tama.

265
02:02:40,390 --> 02:03:24,510
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: The evidence will show liquidation reports supported by questionable documents. The evidence will show acknowledgment receipts bearing names government records could not verify. Names that transformed accountability into a mockery. Pananagutan na naging kalokohan. Names that insulted the intelligence of the Filipino people. Mary Grace Piattos, Milky Secuya, Kokoy Villamin. On the second article of impeachment, the evidence will show financial transactions involving billions of pesos associated with the respondent and her husband.

266
02:03:26,170 --> 02:04:08,810
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Billions. Hindi milyon. Bilyon. At habang milyon-milyong Pilipino ang nagtatrabaho at nag-iipon buong buhay upang magkaroon ng sariling bahay, makapagpaaral ng mga anak, magkaroon ng konting siguridad para sa pamilya. Aba, bilyon-bilyong piso ang dumaan sa mga bank accounts na hindi maipaliwanag nang maayos. This article is not about wealth. This is about accountability. This is about explanation. If wealth was lawfully acquired, where is the lawful explanation?

267
02:04:10,460 --> 02:04:21,180
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: If transactions were proper, Where is the complete accounting? If numbers truly add up, then why do they refuse to reconcile?

268
02:04:22,890 --> 02:05:11,490
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: On the third article of impeachment, the evidence will show bribery, graft and corruption through the distribution of cash payments and monetary gifts to officials under the supervision of the respondent. This article is not simply about envelopes. This is about institution. This is about whether loyalty was purchased rather than earned. Government cannot function if loyalty is purchased instead of earned. Kapag nabibili ang katapatan, nawawala ang integridad. At kapag nabibili ang opisyal, nabubudol ang bayan.

269
02:05:13,230 --> 02:05:23,550
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Perhaps the greatest tragedy is where The conduct allegedly occurred in the Department of Education.

270
02:05:25,150 --> 02:06:39,000
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Tama po, sa DepEd. The institution entrusted with teaching future generations honesty, responsibility, integrity. On the fourth article of impeachment, the evidence will show culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust through conduct that threatens constitutional order. Among all allegations before this Court, none strikes more directly at the heart of constitutional order than this one. Ito na po ang pinakamatindi. And unlike in many cases, which depend upon competing accounts, this evidence comes substantially from the respondent’s own recorded public statements. The Court will see them. The Court will hear them. The Court will judge them. Public officials may disagree. We may criticize one another. They may compete fiercely for power. That is democracy.

271
02:06:39,540 --> 02:06:45,310
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: But democracy ends when violence begins.

272
02:06:46,030 --> 02:06:57,480
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Sa kasaysayan ng ating Republika, walang Bise Presidente na may kaibigan na hitman. Ngayon lang,

273
02:06:59,010 --> 02:07:33,550
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: walang Bise Presidente na nagpapapatay ng Pangulo. Ngayon lang. Walang Bise Presidente na handang magpapatay para lamang makaupo sa puwesto. Ngayon lang. The Constitution provides many means to resolve political conflict: election, legislation, public debate, judicial review, and even impeachment. But it does not permit threats.

274
02:07:35,180 --> 02:07:46,600
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: It does not permit violence. It does not permit people entrusted with power to place themselves above constitutional restraints.

275
02:07:48,560 --> 02:08:13,430
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Your Honors, at the center of this case lies a simple question, perhaps the most important to any republic. When the people entrust power to a public official, Does the public official remain accountable to the people? Or do the people become accountable to the public official?

276
02:08:15,280 --> 02:08:31,940
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: The Constitution's answer is very clear. Power belongs to the people. Public office is merely borrowed. And every borrowed power carries with it the obligation to account for its use.

277
02:08:33,580 --> 02:09:07,800
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: If a barangay treasurer must account for public fund, then so must the vice president. If an ordinary public servant can be investigated, then so can the highest officials of the government. If ordinary citizen is expected to obey the rules, then surely those who govern them must obey them first. Otherwise, what lessons do we teach our children?

278
02:09:09,810 --> 02:09:14,550
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: That there is law for the powerful and another for everyone else.

279
02:09:16,070 --> 02:09:40,240
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: That accountability exists only for the weak. That public office grants immunity against accountability. Your Honors, this is not the republic envisioned by the Constitution. This is not the republic deserved by the Filipino people.

280
02:09:42,070 --> 02:09:49,130
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Therefore, The prosecution asks only this. Look at the evidence.

281
02:09:50,680 --> 02:09:52,400
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Listen to the witnesses.

282
02:09:53,940 --> 02:10:09,720
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Examine the records. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Judge this case not by politics, not by popularity, not by fear, not by loyalty.

283
02:10:11,500 --> 02:10:47,740
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Judge this case by the Constitution. Judge this case by the evidence. Years from now, future generations will not remember today’s political alliances. They will not remember today’s headlines. They will not remember today’s slogans. What they will remember is when accountability was tested, the institutions of the Republic stood firm. They will remember only one thing.

284
02:10:49,610 --> 02:10:54,430
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: What this court did when the Constitution called.

285
02:10:56,310 --> 02:11:15,520
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Future generations will not ask how powerful the respondent was. They will not ask how loud the political debate became. But they will ask one thing. When the Constitution called, did the Republic answer?

286
02:11:18,460 --> 02:11:22,560
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Your Honors, this is that moment.

287
02:11:24,400 --> 02:11:27,700
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: This is the moment the Constitution anticipated.

288
02:11:29,290 --> 02:11:52,460
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: This is the moment when accountability must mean exactly what it says. This is the moment when public office must truly remain a public trust. This is the moment when the Republic must demonstrate that laws are applied equally to the powerful and the powerless alike.

289
02:11:54,760 --> 02:12:30,240
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: At matapos marinig ang mga saksi, matapos masuri ang mga dokumento, matapos matimbang lahat ng ebidensya, ang prosekusyon ay naniniwala at naninindigan. Isa lamang ang maliwanag na konklusyon. Ang tiwalang ipinagkaloob ay nilabag. Ang kapangyarihang ipinahiram ay inabuso. At ang konstitusyon mismo. ang humihingi ng pananagutan.

290
02:12:31,920 --> 02:12:55,560
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Amid the clarity of the mandate of the Constitution, political noise continues, political squabbles continues, political division continues. Please, let me conclude. Salus populi est suprema lex. The welfare of the people is the supreme law.

291
02:12:58,020 --> 02:12:59,160
Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Thank you, Your Honor.

292
02:12:59,890 --> 02:13:05,390
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The opening remarks of the prosecution through the lead counsel is duly noted.

293
02:13:07,560 --> 02:13:09,720
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Opening remarks for the respondent.

294
02:13:11,260 --> 02:13:22,300
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Counsel for respondent has 15 minutes and we will give you the same latitude we gave counsel for the prosecution, for an additional 3 minutes should you so need it. You may proceed, ma'am.

295
02:13:22,300 --> 02:17:00,170
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: 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. Samakatwid, ang malinaw na layunin sa likod ng 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 25, 2025 Decision, the Supreme Court unanimously declared in Duterte v. House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. 278353 and 278359, that the

296
02:17:00,170 --> 02:21:03,430
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives were tainted with grave abuse of discretion, rendering the articles of impeachment that the House transmitted last year to the Senate as void ab initio. Early this year, the Supreme Court unanimously denied with finality the House of Representatives' motion 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 na dapat nating tandaan sa buong panahon ng paglilitis na ito, ano man 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, kailangang naayon 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

297
02:21:04,040 --> 02:29:30,750
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: 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 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 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, Amenah 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 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 Release Order No. SARO-BMB-C-22-0012004 signed by former Secretary Amenah 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 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 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. 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 QuadCom 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 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. This also brings to fore the reality that in the words of the Supreme Court in People v. Pagal, the individual citizen is but a 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. Sa madaling salita. Kinikilala ng ating saligang batas na sa bawat paglilitis, ang isang indibidwal ay nahaharap sa malalim at napakalaking makinarya ng buong Estado. At ang tanging sandigan lamang niya laban sa anumang pang-aabuso ng kapangyarihan ay ang kanyang mga batayang karapatan sa ilalim ng ating konstitusyon. Kayat mahalagang linawin na sa gitna ng pagtatangkang 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 naaayon 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 inasmuch 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.

298
02:29:32,720 --> 02:30:01,360
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The opening statement of counsel for respondent is duly noted and entered into the records. 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.

299
02:30:01,360 --> 02:30:30,790
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The pre-trial order stated that the prosecution has a free hand to determine the sequence of the presentation of the articles of impeachment. However, respondent will be similarly accorded the same right insofar as the presentation of their evidence and witnesses in chief is concerned. May we now learn from the public, from the panel of prosecutors, rather. What will be the sequence of presentation of the articles of impeachment that they intend to pursue?

300
02:30:33,490 --> 02:30:37,190
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Attorney Diokno is recognized. You may proceed, sir.

301
02:30:37,190 --> 02:30:58,450
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: 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 Article 4.

302
02:31:01,440 --> 02:31:05,500
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: No, 2. I'm sorry, Article 2. I stand corrected.

303
02:31:05,820 --> 02:31:14,700
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So the sequence of presentations shall be Article 4, Article 1, Article 3, and then Article 2.

304
02:31:15,180 --> 02:31:16,700
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor.

305
02:31:16,820 --> 02:31:26,440
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So I presume that beginning tomorrow, once we issue the subpoena for your first set of witnesses, you shall begin with article four yes

306
02:31:26,440 --> 02:31:27,820
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: your honor again

307
02:31:28,110 --> 02:31:41,610
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Chair rules that the respondent has the same and equal privilege of presenting its case as it so desires when its time to present its evidence-in-chief shall come. What is the pleasure of counsel for respondent? Thank

308
02:31:41,610 --> 02:31:48,690
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: you your honor may i ask if the prosecution is ready to present its first witness today because the defense is ready today your honor

309
02:31:48,690 --> 02:31:51,350
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Duly noted. We will get to that later.

310
02:31:53,420 --> 02:32:18,380
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Next item in the agenda. If Your Honor please, I just noticed that Your Honor had already directed counsel for the defense not to propound questions to the prosecution. This is already the second time that she's doing that. She appears to be assuming or arrogating the powers of the court, because as I understand the rules, it's only the court that can propound questions to counsel.

311
02:32:19,080 --> 02:32:20,360
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Your Honor, may I comment?

312
02:32:21,080 --> 02:32:22,080
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The lady may comment.

313
02:32:22,160 --> 02:32:35,520
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Yes, Your Honor. I take exception to that manifestation of the good counsel. In fact, the record would show, and if we can run the transcript back, my question was addressed to the presiding officer, Your Honor.

314
02:32:35,820 --> 02:32:38,520
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Let us move forward, gentlemen and lady.

315
02:32:40,160 --> 02:32:44,480
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Next item for us to dispense with, the witness disclosure rule.

316
02:32:46,540 --> 02:33:00,680
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The prosecution proposed a three-day witness disclosure rule. The respondent proposed a five-day witness disclosure rule, but I understand the prosecution is amenable to the five-day witness disclosure rule. Would that be correct?

317
02:33:00,680 --> 02:33:04,100
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: We are amenable to the five-day disclosure rule.

318
02:33:04,100 --> 02:36:27,930
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Chair therefore rules that insofar as disclosure to both to either party of a witness to be presented um not mentioned in the pre-trial order and or briefs of the parties shall be for five days this is subject also to the chair's reminder that at the end of every week that would be a wednesday while we are on recess we will ask the party presenting their case in chief to enumerate the witnesses they intend to present for the following week with the corresponding motion for the request for issuance of subpoena to be submitted the day before on or on tuesday so that we can act on it before the last day of the week so that the subpoena can be properly issued in due course and in due time So ordered on the examination of a witness by more than one counsel as propounded or proposed by the prosecution um the rules of the senate are clear article 15 of the rules on impeachment states Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them and then cross-examined by one person on the other side. Court Chair therefore rules that as a rule only one person shall present a witness. However, in the exigency of the delivery and administration of justice and under certain exceptions, the court may allow more than one counsel. to examine and or propound questions to a witness. To cite an example, just for the sake of the record, if, for example, the panel of prosecutor disagrees with how the counsel for prosecutor is handling the case, the panel of prosecutors or one of them can take over and that is but proper and should be allowed and will therefore be considered as an exemption to that rule. And other similar exigencies will be allowed in order to afford. the orderly administration of justice and of these proceedings. So ordered. In so far as the BIR box is concerned, what is the pleasure? In so far as the BIR box is concerned, this box was turned over to the Senate as part of the documents including the articles of impeachment. However, The court is not yet in custodia legis of this box, given that there is no lawful order issued by the court for this box to be turned over to the Senate, more so that it is not yet offered in evidence, not even as of yet marked. The chair therefore orders that the BIR box be closed, sealed, and as it is received. be sent back to the BIR or the Bureau of Internal Revenue without prejudice to any action that the court may take if a motion will be filed by either party for the issuance of a subpoena and we shall await action, if any, by the BIR Commissioner should that time come. So ordered. Now, insofar as the subpoena requested by the prosecution for the two NBI agents, may I request the Clerk of Court to kindly read the motion for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum.

319
02:36:36,990 --> 02:37:23,830
Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: The prosecution, through the undersigned public prosecutors, respectfully requests the issuance of subpoenas ad testificandum, directing the following witnesses to appear and testify before the Honorable Impeachment Court on July 6, July 7, and July 8, 2026 at 2 p.m., as their testimonies are material, relevant, and necessary to establish the allegations under Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment, as well as matters necessarily incidental thereto, and for purposes of the identification and authentication of other evidence before the Impeachment Court. Number 1. Attorney Jeremy C. Lotoc, Regional Director, National Bureau of Investigation. Number 2. John Mark Calilung, Senior Agent, National Bureau of Investigation. Respectfully submitted. [unclear], Pasay City, July 1, 2026.

320
02:37:25,050 --> 02:37:42,830
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We are not in receipt of any reservation or objection on the part of the respondent, counsel for respondent rather. However, Chair would like to ask the prosecutors, do you only request for a subpoena ad testificandum or a subpoena duces tecum as well?

321
02:37:44,940 --> 02:37:52,300
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: If I understand the record, Your Honor please, it is a subpoena both ad testificandum and duces tecum.

322
02:37:54,080 --> 02:38:00,420
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The motion filed by the prosecutors is only for a subpoena ad testificandum. That's why the chair is clarifying.

323
02:38:02,190 --> 02:38:06,670
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Your Honor. I stand corrected, Your Honor, please. It's just for ad testificandum.

324
02:38:07,150 --> 02:38:31,900
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Counsel for respondent? If I may, Your Honor, just to set the record straight, the presiding officer earlier inquired or... mentioned that the court is not in receipt of any objection from the respondent, but just to set the record straight, the respondent has not received any copy of the request for a subpoena being mentioned today, Your Honor.

325
02:38:33,760 --> 02:38:59,590
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: What we receive, Your Honor. um was a manifestation uh containing the list of um the witnesses of the prosecution for july 6 7 and 8 in your honor and so it would be impossible for the defense or the respondent to object or to even comment on a request that we were not served with any copy with the

326
02:38:59,590 --> 02:39:23,940
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: two witnesses um against tomas sabina has been requested by the prosecution or mentioned in the pretrial brief of the prosecution and was not commented on by the respondents in their pretrial brief. But if you do have any objections now, the court would be more than glad, or reservations, the court would be more than glad to hear it before ruling on the motion for the issuance of a subpoena on these two NBI agents.

327
02:39:24,220 --> 02:39:31,980
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: At this point, Your Honor, that's fine. We'll just place on record our objections as the testimonial evidence is presented.

328
02:39:32,650 --> 02:40:49,350
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Duly noted, Chair hereby orders that the subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum be issued to the aforementioned two NBI agents contained in the motion filed by the counsel for the prosecutors. Although by nature subpoena is ex parte, we would instruct, Chair would instruct the Clerk of Court to kindly upload. all of the filings of all of the parties to the website for the information not only of the senator judges but also of the parties and their counsel the chair earlier um counsel for respondent said that witnesses for the succeeding week shall be manifested in open court on the last day of the trial in this case by wednesday in so far as the next week's trial is concerned So ordered now in so far as the request for subpoena for Bank records and AMLC records. Chair recognizes the Clerk of Court to kindly read and spread into the records the request for the issuance of subpoena, both, I believe, ad testificandum and duces tecum, or just duces tecum, for the aforementioned documents. The Clerk of Court may proceed.

329
02:40:50,010 --> 02:41:26,200
Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: Request for issuance of subpoena, dus estecum. The prosecution respectfully requests the issuance of a subpoena, dus estecum. the branch manager of the following banks BPI Julia Vargas branch BPI Green Hills Elsa branch Philippine Savings Bank Wilson branch BDO Unibank Inc Davao CM Rector branch Metro Bank Davao Ecoland branch BDO Unibank Davao Rizal branch Security Bank Bikutan branch Land Bank San Pedro branch Philippine Savings Bank Davao MADR branch

330
02:41:33,800 --> 02:44:34,820
Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: requiring him or her or his or her authorized representative to submit to the clerk of the impeachment court on or before 24 June 2026 at 9 a.m. the certified true copies of all records documents books papers electronic data communications and information in the possession custody or control of the bank relating to any account deposit investment trust loan safety deposit or other financial transactions maintained, opened, closed, controlled beneficially owned or jointly held by Sara Z. Duterte and or Manases R. Carpio whether individually jointly with each other jointly with any other person or through any or any authorized representative representative nominee attorney in fact or signatory for the period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2025, including but not limited to. Number one, records identifying account numbers, account types, know your customer documents, such as but not limited to customer information forms, and signature cards. Number two, monthly bank statements, average daily balances per calendar year, year-end balances from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2025. Number three, all account and transaction records, ledgers and journals and similar instruments from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2025. And number four, all other relevant bank documents. Request for subpoena duces tecum to the Anti-Money Laundering Council, to Honorable Eli M. Remolona Jr., Chairman, AMLC, to Attorney Ronel U. Buenaventura, Executive Director, AMLC. Requiring him or her or his or her authorized representative to submit to the Clerk of the Impeachment Court on or before 24 June 2026 at 9 a.m. Original or certified true copies of the following. 1. All reports of covered transactions and suspicious transactions filed by banks and all other financial institutions and covered persons required to submit. covered transaction reports and suspicious transaction reports to the AMLC involving Sara Duterte Carpio and or Manassas R. Carpio, covering the period of 2006 to 2025. Number two, any and all investigation reports or related reports or documents prepared by the AMLC involving the reported covered transactions or suspicious transactions. And number three, electronic copies including microsoft excel files database extracts or machine readable formats of amlc ctrs and strs for the period 2007 to 2025 involving Sara Duterte Carpio and or Manases R. Carpio respectfully submitted [unclear], Pasay City june 18 2026. your

331
02:44:34,820 --> 02:44:36,600
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Your Honor, may I comment?

332
02:44:36,600 --> 02:44:46,560
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: If Your Honor please, before the defense makes a comment, just to obviate the proceedings and to facilitate the hearing today, if I may first—

333
02:44:46,560 --> 02:44:49,220
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Chair has not recognized anyone yet.

334
02:44:50,110 --> 02:44:52,150
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I be recognized, Your Honor?

335
02:45:01,150 --> 02:45:04,450
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Yes. Counsel for prosecutor.

336
02:45:04,610 --> 02:46:00,090
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: If Your Honor please, the subpoena request that was just read by the clerk of court pertains to a request that the prosecution filed in early june where we had requested that the documents specified be brought to the Honorable Court on June 24. Since that date has passed and no issue, no subpoena has been issued, we had refiled just this afternoon a subpoena reiterating the same requests and in the interest of justice and to allow the defense to comment or if they want object to the request that we filed this afternoon. Perhaps if I may suggest, if Your Honor, please, that we provide the copy to the defense, give them a period of time to submit their opposition or objection, and as well the same period of time to the prosecution to reply before the Honorable Court rules on this request.

337
02:46:01,770 --> 02:46:12,010
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Is the motion for subpoena duces tecum and/or ad testificandum that you filed today exactly the same as what you filed before?

338
02:46:12,690 --> 02:46:24,030
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: No, Your Honor. It contains the same documents that we had requested earlier, but there were some additional documents that were also mentioned in the request we filed this afternoon.

339
02:46:24,430 --> 02:46:30,810
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So you asked for additional documents? Yes, Your Honor. What does Counsel for Respondents say?

340
02:46:31,050 --> 02:48:00,070
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Your Honor, before I give my comment on the request for subpoena, I thank the good counsel for offering to provide us a copy. of the request for subpoena but we would also ask that we be provided with the june 2026 copies of the request for subpoena as well as the new one that the counsel mentioned today but just for the record it would seem to me that the request for subpoena covers documents involving years from 2006 uh up to 2025 and again just for the record this would seem to violate the Duterte v. House of Representatives ruling which very clearly states that the impeachment must be only for uh those acts or omissions within the impeachable years and terms and office of the official but nonetheless your honor um just so we're able to fully ventilate whatever objections or comments that we may have on this request and considering that for today and in the disclosure made by the prosecution they will begin with article 4 and all these documents seem to pertain to article 2 then we will ask for um 10 days to file our comment on these requests for subpoena your honor from today

341
02:48:00,070 --> 02:49:01,950
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: hereby directs that all motions for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum or subpoena duces tecum filed by either party be furnished to opposing party and or counsel before filing it before this court in order to provide full disclosure and fairness But instead of five days counsel, chair is giving both parties five days to submit their respective memoranda and or position. And so far as this is concerned, we will afford the parties time to argue their position before the court so that the senator judges can hear your position. In addition, their extended written memoranda in so far as this crucial issue. of issuance of a subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum on certain bank records and amlc records which the chair will schedule giving ample notice to the parties in due time Is that okay with both sides?

342
02:49:02,150 --> 02:49:18,630
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Just for clarity, Your Honor. Yes, Counsel for Respondent. May I ask if the period for the parties to submit or the respondent to submit her comment on the request for a subpoena would be five days from today, Your Honor?

343
02:49:18,910 --> 02:49:23,430
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: From today, but you can submit it on Monday since it lands on a Saturday. Second,

344
02:49:23,510 --> 02:49:34,470
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Your Honor. The presiding officer mentioned that we also must submit a memorandum or position paper on this, Your Honor.

345
02:49:34,590 --> 02:49:47,570
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: If you so desire, or you simply can argue it in open court, but you may want to submit an extended written memorandum on the matter for the easy reading of the senator judges pertaining to this issue.

346
02:49:47,990 --> 02:49:54,330
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Last, Your Honor, will the court also schedule an oral argument on the respective positions of the parties?

347
02:49:54,530 --> 02:49:55,810
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Yes, Chair will do that.

348
02:49:56,090 --> 02:49:58,230
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Thank you, Your Honor. And this would not be on Monday, Your Honor?

349
02:49:58,470 --> 02:50:00,130
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: No, that will not be on Monday.

350
02:50:00,310 --> 02:50:00,930
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Thank you, Your Honor.

351
02:50:01,170 --> 02:50:16,510
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Counsel for prosecutor? Yes. May I be allowed to make a counter-manifestation? Just a brief one with respect to the statement of defense counsel regarding the application of the case of Duterte v. House of Representatives.

352
02:50:16,510 --> 02:50:17,570
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: may proceed briefly.

353
02:50:19,030 --> 02:51:28,550
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Your Honor, the decision and the resolution of the Honorable Supreme Court in that case did not say... that any pre-term evidence is inadmissible. There is no statement like that at all in the entire decision and the resolution. What the Supreme Court said, and I quote, was very simple. The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. All of the articles in this particular case pertain to impeachable acts committed by the Vice President during her term as an impeachable officer, including unexplained wealth. If I may just be allowed one minute, Your Honor, to explain that. The unexplained wealth, Your Honor, that is amassed prior to the term of a Vice President is relevant and material to her being an impeachable officer. Because wealth of that magnitude—millions or even billions of pesos—continues to benefit the Vice President.

354
02:51:28,550 --> 02:52:02,390
Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: It's very clear that when a local government official, for example, who later becomes a national official, amasses hundreds of millions, if not billions of pesos, then that benefit continues today. Second, if Your Honor please, integrity hindi po pwedeng biyakin po 'yan na kesa dati ay hindi po ganoon at ngayon ay may integridad it's very clear that integrity is a continuing requirement of fitness for office Thank you, Your Honor.

355
02:52:03,730 --> 02:52:06,050
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Duly noted and entered into the records.

356
02:52:09,000 --> 02:52:12,460
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Very briefly, Your Honor, I won't take much time of the impeachment.

357
02:52:12,660 --> 02:52:18,440
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: As a rejoinder to the statement and manifestation of Representative Diokno, briefly.

358
02:52:18,440 --> 02:52:19,460
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: you, Your Honor. You may proceed.

359
02:52:19,700 --> 02:53:32,590
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: I think the good counsel has already stated precisely the reason for our position. We maintain our belief that the Duterte v. House of Representatives ruling precludes any of these. crawling incursion again on private records of so many individuals and so many entities when nothing in the articles of impeachment point to any specific allegations as to the relevancy of all these documents your honor but nonetheless we will include all our position and as well as our objections on the request made today with respect to these documents and what it would seem to the defense would be another um 2.0 version of a fishing expedition um may i also your honor uh just to clarify also the period given to us to comment on the request for subpoena may we ask that the five-day period run from our receipt of the um copies of the documents your honor we

360
02:53:32,590 --> 02:53:37,490
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We will make sure that counsel for respondent will get that today.

361
02:53:37,490 --> 02:53:38,930
Atty. Sheila C. Sison: Thank you, Your Honor. The

362
02:53:40,080 --> 02:53:51,900
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The comments of both counsel of the parties are duly noted and entered into the records. Chair would like to apologize to Senator Cayetano, who has been waiting for quite some time. Thank you for your patience and indulgence. Senator is recognized. What is your pleasure?

363
02:53:51,900 --> 02:53:56,460
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: senator judge um since

364
02:53:58,100 --> 02:56:00,700
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: we already stated as a court that uh We will take literally Section 3, subparagraph 6 of Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all members of the Senate. May I ask the members of this court, through the presiding justice, to consider, not today, I have a proposal, but not today, but to consider communication with the Sandiganbayan for the attendance of Senator Rodante Marcoleta and Senator Jinggoy Estrada considering that the presiding officer may correct me if i'm wrong but if we get to section 21 as discussed a while ago by the defense the prosecution and defense and uh we do not know what will happen their case may be dismissed they they can be out on bail so we want them to be able to participate and observe the witnesses as senator judges here i do know that Senator Jinggoy is under suspension but there's an argument to be made that the impeachment court is sui generis in ordinary committee hearings we do coordinate with courts to ask that persons under their custody be delivered to the senate under or the house of representatives under certain conditions so i'd like to formally ask mr president that this court consider that i will submit whether you'd rather have a caucus or a in-camera discussion or if you want us all to submit our legal opinion i wouldn't also mind the prosecution and defense weighing in but considering that if they do not attend and they are here

365
02:56:02,590 --> 02:56:15,030
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Sorry, Mr. President, considering that if they do not attend at all and cannot vote, their vote will be equal to an acquittal. And as we said from the start, we want justice,

366
02:56:18,350 --> 02:56:40,470
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: we want a fair impeachment trial. The prosecution said that we should look at the evidence, listen to the witnesses. So even if this is done by Senator Marcoleta and even if this is done by Senator Jinggoy, and of course this is my personal opinion that there is a policy in putting them in jail. That's my personal view.

367
02:56:42,470 --> 02:56:59,210
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: allowing them to attend here might add to the integrity of the proceeding and actually make things easier when the time comes to render a verdict. So may I submit that to the court and to our colleagues for discussion at the proper time, Mr. President.

368
02:56:59,270 --> 02:57:08,850
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The chair notes the comments and requests of Senator Judge Cayetano and will consult the senator judges regarding this matter and shall...

369
02:57:10,790 --> 02:57:26,590
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Coordinate with his office with respect to his requests pertaining to Senators Jingoy Estrada and Senator Marcoleta, including whether or not we will enlist the comment and position of the parties to this case. So ordered.

370
02:57:30,640 --> 02:57:36,460
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator Tulfo? What is the pleasure of Senator-Judge Tulfo? Raffy?

371
02:57:40,380 --> 02:58:00,740
Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Mr. Presiding Officer, as far as I'm concerned, I would allow siguro mag-monitor sina Senator Jinggoy at Senator Marcoleta. They will be allowed [unclear] TV monitor. I do agree with what Senator Alan Cayetano was suggesting. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

372
02:58:00,740 --> 02:58:09,300
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The point of Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo is well taken by the Chair. Any others?

373
02:58:13,500 --> 02:58:29,850
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: If there are none, the Presiding Officer would now like to deal with an administrative matter before we adjourn for this afternoon, on the matter of providing public access to case records. Yes, Senator-Judge Marcos, what is your pleasure, ma'am?

374
02:58:29,850 --> 02:59:06,040
Sen. Imee Marcos: Yes, Presiding Officer. May I request an update? As I recall, during the pretrial conference, there was disagreement on how to go about the markings on the various documents. And among the thousands of pages that we have received in evidence for the trial, it apparently was resolved that counsel should place their initials on the evidence. Is that correct? Is that still what stands today? And each party would take the respective evidence or files and present the same during the trial to guarantee that the same evidence would be presented. That is correct,

375
02:59:06,260 --> 02:59:14,320
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: with the exception of some, I think, documents where the original was not presented, which is being corrected, I think, by the parties as we speak.

376
02:59:14,640 --> 02:59:42,760
Sen. Imee Marcos: Are we in fact in receipt as judges of all these thousands of pages? Dahil ako, simple lang hinahanap ko yung affidavit of investigation, yung dalawang NBI na unang testigo na sana haharap ngayon, nakita ko sa libu-libong pahina na sinubmit, mali-mali ang pagka-annex ng AOI. Hindi ko talaga mahanap. Tapos, ang sabi doon, Annex G.

377
02:59:44,020 --> 02:59:59,340
Sen. Imee Marcos: I don't know if the clerk of the Senate really provided records as marked during pre-trial and if it was really filed.

378
03:00:00,000 --> 03:00:01,600
Sen. Imee Marcos: ito at pag-aaralan natin.

379
03:00:01,880 --> 03:00:46,480
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: At this point in time, Your Honor, documentary evidence as of yet has not been formally offered and therefore has not been turned over to the court. Neither is it as of yet been identified by a witness to authenticate the same and to be allowed admission into the records of this court. That time will come. Once the prosecution presents their witness and identifies the piece of evidence, that will be the proper time, perhaps, that the good senator-judge can ask for a copy because the lady might want to ask questions of the witness. So that time come for the witness to testify as to the document marked previously erroneously or rightfully by either party.

380
03:00:46,800 --> 03:00:57,880
Sen. Imee Marcos: Yes, precisely. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We wish to prepare for the three first witnesses and we're unable to access any of their affidavits or other documents. Thank you.

381
03:00:58,970 --> 03:01:03,490
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Duly noted and entered into the records. What is the pleasure of Senator-Judge Padilla?

382
03:01:18,190 --> 03:01:44,750
Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla: Kay Sen. Judge Raffy Tulfo. Gusto ko lamang pong linawin na ang hinihingi po namin kung hindi man makapag-participate dahil sinasabi nga po ay ipinagbabawal silang makapag-participate at bumoto si Sen. Jinggoy Estrada at Sen. Judge Marcoleta. Ang hinihingi po namin ay makapunta po sila dito bilang observer. Hindi lang po basta monitor. Yun lamang po. Maraming salamat.

383
03:01:45,020 --> 03:01:50,420
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Noted, at the proper time, we shall discuss this matter and settle it as a court or in caucus.

384
03:01:53,700 --> 03:02:01,140
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: There being no other senator-judge who wishes to make a manifestation, comment, and or motion, Chair would now like to dispose of an administrative matter.

385
03:02:04,270 --> 03:02:52,790
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Consistent with Article 2, Section 28 of the Constitution on the Policy of Public Disclosure and Matters Involving Public Interest and to give life to the directive under the rules to open the impeachment proceedings to the public. The court hereby directs the clerk of court to create the necessary internet web pages to allow the electronic records of impeachment to be made accessible to the public through the Senate website, whereby all pleadings, memoranda, motions filed by the party shall be uploaded, including the journal of the proceedings after it shall have been approved by the impeachment court. Yun lang po siguro yung madedelay ng konti dahil kailangan aprobahan muna. ng impeachment court yung journal bago po namin ma-upload sa website. Yes, what is the pressure of Senator Judge Bam Aquino?

386
03:02:53,110 --> 03:03:11,650
Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino: Yes, Mr. President, on this note, firstly, we'd like to second and congratulate this move of the impeachment court to make all of the evidence available to the public. May we know in how many days will the Clerk of Court make this evidence available to the public, Mr. President?

387
03:03:14,720 --> 03:03:34,080
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: They've started but they have not completed it yet. As Senator Judge Marcos said, the documents are voluminous. I think it covers until 9Q if I'm not mistaken initially when it was marked. About more than 10,000 documents.

388
03:03:34,600 --> 03:03:46,030
Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino: Mr. President, of course, in the same way, if this is made available to the public six months from now or one year from now, that defeats the purpose of having this made public. So—

389
03:03:46,030 --> 03:03:46,690
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: That will not happen.

390
03:03:47,040 --> 03:03:58,630
Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino: Yes. May we get a commitment from the Clerk of Court as to the delay by which presented evidence is made public, Mr. President?

391
03:03:58,640 --> 03:04:30,030
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: No, no. Let me clarify, Your Honor. I believe the articles of impeachment as well as its annexes have been uploaded. The answer as well as its annexes have been uploaded. And most of the exhibits that were marked, not all,

392
03:04:31,790 --> 03:04:58,350
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: are annexes of either the impeachment complaint and/or the answer. Can the Chair give you an update before the week is over as to a realistic timetable to upload in real time already, again except for the journal, which we need to approve? So we cannot upload the Wednesday transcript or journal until we meet again on Monday and approve the journal of Wednesday.

393
03:04:58,350 --> 03:05:02,490
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So that would be the only delay if at all in uploading it. That should be the only delay.

394
03:05:02,810 --> 03:05:16,150
Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino: So if I take it correctly, Mr. President, the Clerk of Court will endeavor to upload all of the presented evidence in real time at the soonest possible time except for the journal which needs approval of the body.

395
03:05:16,450 --> 03:05:17,530
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: That is correct, Your Honor.

396
03:05:17,610 --> 03:05:18,410
Sen. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino: Thank you, Mr. President.

397
03:05:19,320 --> 03:05:21,320
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator Judge Cayetano, Alan.

398
03:05:24,210 --> 03:06:48,780
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Presiding Senator Judge, just a clarification. So no problem with complete transparency with any public records. But when we talk about evidence, di ba precisely that's why we want a fair trial, due process. There's a process wherein the prosecution shall present the evidence, then they will offer it, and then if there's a question as to the relevance or if it is prohibited. For example, if evidence presented is a fruit of the poisonous tree will we upload that we haven't decided yet here whether we will accept it as evidence or or not so i so let me tell you first which ones personally i don't have a problem with don't have a problem with the public records in general Being completely transparent, I have no problem with senator judges given time to review everything. And I assume we're all trained to consider only the evidence that is later on admitted, offered and admitted. So my problem is that, for example, if someone offers now, between now and the trial, wiretapped.

399
03:06:50,710 --> 03:06:57,780
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: recordings. Do we upload that? When we have not made a ruling yet on that. So I just want to be clarified on that. The

400
03:06:57,780 --> 03:07:39,070
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: chair will clarify. As the chair said earlier, only the pleadings, motions, and memoranda filed by the parties and insofar as the exhibits marked are concerned, only those attached as annexes to either the articles of impeachment. and or the answer to the impeachment complaint. Insofar as documentary evidence is concerned, it will only be admitted and if at all admitted by the court and published once formal offer has been made. Until such time, we will not publish any documentary evidence even after being identified by a witness because it is the formal offer that will determine its admission by the court after.

401
03:07:39,900 --> 03:07:46,100
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Same thing, just to clarify, same with if we do issue a subpoena.

402
03:07:48,260 --> 03:07:49,860
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: The subject

403
03:07:49,860 --> 03:07:54,300
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: matter of the subpoena will not be published, but the motion for the issuance of a subpoena will.

404
03:07:54,300 --> 03:07:55,480
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Thank you for that clarification.

405
03:07:56,590 --> 03:08:03,390
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo is recognized. What is your pleasure, sir?

406
03:08:05,890 --> 03:08:41,860
Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. Presiding Officer, just want to be clarified. I need a clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer. With regard to these Anti-Money Laundering Council documents or pieces of evidence that will be submitted here, will it be okay if we tackle this in public or shall we tackle evidence from the AMLC during an executive session? I believe this is under the Bank Secrecy Law. We can tackle it because this is an impeachment court. Mr. Presiding Officer.

407
03:08:42,280 --> 03:09:47,750
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: What we will debate upon, if at all, on the scheduled date to be set by the Chair, is a debate on whether or not to issue the subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum in relation to AMLC records, not the actual records yet. Once it is granted by the Court and is issued, it will have to be presented by the parties. We cannot tackle and discuss it in executive session because anything and everything discussed in executive session cannot be revealed to the public and used by this Court. Secondly, it can only be, if at all, revealed by a unanimous vote or consent by all the senator-judges, which effectively hogties that piece of evidence if we discuss and talk about it only in executive session. Whether or not it is to be made public, whether or not it can be legally obtained, will be decided by this Court after hearing the oral arguments of the parties.

408
03:09:48,130 --> 03:09:50,490
Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer.

409
03:09:52,450 --> 03:09:55,110
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: What is the pleasure of Senator Judge Villanueva?

410
03:09:55,720 --> 03:10:25,550
Sen. Joel Villanueva: Yes, Mr. President. Considering that we have been tackling and asking of pieces of evidence, I think there's a lot of questions with regard to the mahiwagang BIR box, Mr. President. Yung clarification lang po, where is it now and when are we going to transfer it to the Bureau of Internal Revenue?

411
03:10:25,550 --> 03:10:38,830
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: It is with the Clerk of Court in the Office of the Secretary General as instructed by the Chair. It should be sent back to the BIR by tomorrow morning in the condition that it was received, meaning sealed.

412
03:10:39,090 --> 03:10:41,150
Sen. Joel Villanueva: The same. Thank you, Mr. President.

413
03:10:43,250 --> 03:10:48,670
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Any other manifestations or motions on the part of the Senator Judges?

414
03:10:50,650 --> 03:10:54,050
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge Hontiveros is recognized. What is your pleasure, ma'am?

415
03:10:55,530 --> 03:11:21,620
Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Mr. Presiding Officer, just to make a brief statement in support of the ruling recently proclaimed by the Presiding Officer on executive sessions. If I may, for the record, and just to add a little bit to that, Presiding Officer, the executive session is only for

416
03:11:21,620 --> 03:11:44,760
Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Congress acting in its usual legislative functions and impeachment trials do not contemplate executive session. So I join with the presiding officer in the call that he made, which I believe is the default also of this impeachment trial court for transparency as a general rule and as a default. Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

417
03:11:45,470 --> 03:12:33,750
Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Senator-Judge Hontiveros. Before the Court adjourns, Chair directs the Clerk of Court to kindly make sure that the subpoena for the two NBI agents will be issued this afternoon and duly received and entrusts it to counsel for the prosecutors to make sure of the attendance of their two witnesses tomorrow. Likewise, the Chair reminds the Clerk of Court to furnish, right after we adjourn, counsel for respondent with a copy of the requests for the issuance of subpoena thus far submitted and filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court. So ordered. There being no other business to discuss, the trial is hereby adjourned until 2 p.m. of Tuesday, tomorrow, July 7, 2026.