WEBVTT 00:05:13.360 --> 00:05:16.140 Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: President, the Presiding Officer, and Senator-Judges of the Impeachment Court. 00:05:26.270 --> 00:05:26.870 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: The 00:05:34.650 --> 00:05:36.350 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Sgt. 00:06:00.260 --> 00:06:02.120 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: at Arms is directed to make a proclamation. 00:06:03.830 --> 00:06:13.610 Alfredo Sotto Corpuz: All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Impeachment Court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte. 00:06:14.250 --> 00:06:22.710 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: The Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator-Judge JV Ejercito. 00:06:51.480 --> 00:08:31.760 Sen. Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito: Ang katuwiran, lalo na sa mga sandali na mistulang, napakailap ng katotohanan. Lagi nawa kaming mapapaalahanan na ang paglilitis na ito ay hindi tungkol sa kanya-kanyang mga personal na interes o political na potibasyon. Ito ay may kinalaman sa konstitusyon, pananagutan sa bawat Pilipino at pagpapahalaga sa tiwalang kanilang ipinagkaloob. Bigyan niyo po kami ng kakayahan na makapagsuri. ng mga ebidensya na may talas ng isipan at wastong pangangatwiran at palagian ng maging patas sa interpretasyon ng mga ito. Pakiingatan niyo rin po kami mula sa galit, pagmamalaki at pagkiling. Palayain niyo po ang puso ng bawat isa mula sa pagkamuhi upang magampanan po namin ang aming tungkulin ng maayos at malaya sa puot. Magsilbing kasangkapan po na wa. Ang paglilitis na ito upang mas mapagtibay ang demokratikong proseso na magpapanagot sa ating bayan. Higit sa lahat, akayin niyo po kami tungo sa landas ng kaliwanagan at katarungan. Sa huli kapag tapos na ang ingay ng politika, makapagmuni-muni nawa kami na ang katungkulan at titlo ay panandalian lamang. Panginoon, Lahat po nawa ng aming gagawin ay para sa ikararangal mo, lamang at kapakinabangan ng aming bayan na pinaglilingkuran. Ito po ang aming dalangin ng buong kababaang loob at pagpapasalamat. Amen. 00:08:44.540 --> 00:09:23.490 Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: Senator-Judge, Ejercito, Senator-Judge, Estrada, Senator-Judge, Go, Senator-Judge, Hontiveros, Senator-Judge, Lacson, Senator-Judge, Lapid, Senator-Judge, Legarda, Senator-Judge, Marcoleta, Senator-Judge, Marcos, Senator-Judge, Padilla, 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 Presiding Officer, Senator-Judge, Escudero, The Senate President, Senator-Judge, Gatchalian. 00:09:24.110 --> 00:09:28.630 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum. 00:09:31.760 --> 00:09:41.220 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: In accordance with the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, the Chair now recognizes the newly elected Presiding Officer to preside over the proceedings of the Impeachment Court. 00:09:42.600 --> 00:09:54.440 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Mr. Senate President. If there are no objections, we shall dispense with the reading of the September 8, 2026 Journal of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, and consider the same as approved. 00:09:57.490 --> 00:10:01.810 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The Clerk of Court will please call the case before the impeachment court. 00:10:02.070 --> 00:10:08.230 Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: Case number 004-2026 in the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte. 00:10:09.050 --> 00:10:10.110 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Appearances for the parties. 00:10:11.880 --> 00:10:13.120 Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Good morning, Your Honors. 00:10:14.670 --> 00:10:16.950 Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: For the prosecution, Your Honor, we are ready. 00:10:18.740 --> 00:10:23.420 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Good morning, Your Honor. Mark C. Vinluan for the Vice President. Same appearance for the defense. 00:10:24.930 --> 00:10:28.150 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Call your witness, Honorable Luistro. 00:10:28.810 --> 00:11:09.950 Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Your Honor, please, before we proceed to calling our witness, I would like to manifest that today, we are set to start the presentation of evidence for Article 2, Unexplained Wealth. which is the third in the order of presentation of the four articles. Your Honor, while this article is commonly referred to as unexplained wealth, we would like to put it on record that there are three subsections under Article 2. One is unexplained wealth. 00:11:10.250 --> 00:11:18.000 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Sorry to object, Your Honor. Yes, Attorney Vinluan. Your Honor, we are well aware of what Article 2 is all about. We are ready for the presentation, Your Honor. 00:11:18.280 --> 00:11:22.800 Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: Nonetheless, Your Honor, this is just for the guidance of the Honorable Senator-Judges. 00:11:22.960 --> 00:11:29.160 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We'll allow it, counsel, as long as no conclusions of fact or law are made. Honorable Luistro, you are duly advised. 00:11:29.640 --> 00:12:22.340 Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” R. Luistro: To proceed, Your Honor, No. 2 subsection is SAL-N violation. And number three subsection is non-divestment of other financial and business interests. That is for the record as well, Your Honor. Your Honor, considering the scope and complexity of Article 2, Unexplained Wealth, the prosecution team likewise deem it proper to have two head prosecutors for this particular article. These are the Honorable Congressman, Chel Diokno, and the Honorable Congressman Terry Ridon. Your Honor, to proceed to the presentation of our evidence, may I request that my co-prosecutor, co-head prosecutor for this article, Honorable Terry Ridon, be recognized. 00:12:24.560 --> 00:12:32.420 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Honorable Luistro. The Honorable Ridon is recognized to call their first witness for this article. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready. 00:12:32.800 --> 00:13:29.160 Rep. Terry L. Ridon: Magandang umaga po sa ating lahat, honorable presiding officer at honorable senator-judges. Bago po magtuloy po sa una pong testigo, we would like to raise two administrative matters. Noong pong August 26, 2026, yung pong honorable impeachment court ay pumayag doon po sa supplemental request for subpoena para po sa iba't ibang mga bangko at financial institutions. Pursuant to the order, Yung mga banko at mga financial institutions po na ito ay binigyan po ng 7 calendar days from August 26, 2026 hanggang September 2, 2026 para isubmiti po ang mga sinabi na mga dokumento. Gusto lang po namin malaman mula po sa Korte po kung itong mga dokumento ay natanggap na po at kung yung mga partido ay nabigyan na po ng mga kopya. We 00:13:29.160 --> 00:13:47.080 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: are still awaiting documents from PNB and Union Bank. They requested for an extension which the court will be granting as part of the administrative rulings it will make before the end of today's trial. For your information, counsel, and for the information of Attorney Mark. 00:13:47.540 --> 00:14:42.380 Rep. Terry L. Ridon: Maraming salamat po, Honorable Presiding Officer. We submit. Ikalawa po... And on a related matter, mula po September 9 to 10, yung pong mga partido kasama po yung clerk of court ay nag-conduct ng marking po ng mga sinapina pong mga dokumento mula sa mga bangko, MLC, at sa BIR. Ganun pa man, despite 15 hours po na itinalaga para sa pagmamarka po ng mga dokumento pong ito, hindi pa po tapos yung pong pagmamarka ng 4,000. ng mga dokumento. And as such, honorable presiding officer, with the concurrence of course of the counsel for the respondent, we would want to respectfully request na magtuloy po yung pong marking ng mga dokumento ngayong araw po na ito at sa susunod pong mga araw hanggang matapos po yung pagmamarka ng lahat po ng mga dokumento. 00:14:42.460 --> 00:14:48.980 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Bahagi din po yan na magiging ruling ng Korte miya-miya bago matapos ang trial sa araw na ito. 00:14:49.230 --> 00:15:29.790 Rep. Terry L. Ridon: Maraming salamat po. At panghuli, upon confirmation with the Honorable Clerk of Court, we would want to manifest na ang lahat po ng mga testigo ng proseksyon na sinabbi na po para sa araw po na ito ay nandito po ngayon. Ganun pa man, yung po SEC witness po namin ay yung pong huli na nakatakda na maging testigo po sa araw at sa linggo po na ito. Hinihiling po namin na Kagalang-galang na presiding officer, baka pwede hong i-excuse mo muna siya ngayon pong araw na ito at ma-direct to present tomorrow, September 15. 00:15:31.900 --> 00:16:25.920 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Upon advice of the Clerk of Court, before proceeding to that, the Honorable Ridon, the Court notes that the conference and the marking was indeed not finished on the 9th and 10th of September. So in light of this, the marking of exhibits shall continue today at 10.30 am at the Rector Room. It shall proceed concurrently with the trial and shall continue even after the trial hours. If it is still not finished by the end of the day, Marking shall continue on the succeeding days until it shall have been completed. So kindly assign an assisting counsel for the marking at 10.30 in a few minutes. Sorry, I couldn't wait. We couldn't wait anymore for the end of trial given that we are going to be issuing this order I just saw it today. So you may proceed, Honorable Ridon. We 00:16:25.920 --> 00:16:38.200 Rep. Terry L. Ridon: submit, Your Honor. Again, doon po sa request po na i-excuse po muna. Yung pong SEC witness for today and direct him to just be present tomorrow. That's 00:16:38.200 --> 00:16:42.400 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: the third witness, right? Because the second witness will be the witness from the Office of the Ombudsman. 00:16:42.560 --> 00:16:44.120 Rep. Terry L. Ridon: Tama po. We 00:16:44.120 --> 00:16:48.720 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: can. We can excuse the third witness. I believe we won't reach that witness anyway for today. 00:16:49.060 --> 00:16:57.120 Rep. Terry L. Ridon: Marami salamat po, Your Honor. At this point, we are giving the floor to our co-head of Article 2, Congressman Chel Diokno. Marami 00:16:57.120 --> 00:17:05.380 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: salamat po. Thank you, Honorable Ridon. The Honorable Diokno, Attorney Chell, you're recognized, sir. Kindly call your witness, Attorney Chell. 00:17:10.790 --> 00:17:24.740 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Good morning po sa lahat. We will call as our first witness in Article 2, Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang. I ask that she be escorted. The Clerk of 00:17:24.740 --> 00:17:32.820 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Court through the OSAA is directed to kindly assist. Former Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to the witness stand. 00:17:53.810 --> 00:17:57.970 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Good morning, ma'am. Before you sit down, ma'am, the clerk is directed to administer the oath. 00:17:59.430 --> 00:18:16.010 Atty. Renato N. Bantug Jr.: Ma'am, kindly raise your right hand. You, Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God. 00:18:16.580 --> 00:18:17.120 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I do. 00:18:18.190 --> 00:18:18.670 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you 00:18:18.670 --> 00:18:20.770 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: very much, ma'am. Your witness, Attorney Diokno. 00:18:21.270 --> 00:18:49.910 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I proceed with the offer of testimony? You may proceed with your offer. Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang served as presiding justice of the Sandigan Bayan from 2013 to 2024. Before her appointment to the Sandigan Bayan, she served for 30 years in the office of the Solicitor General from 1982 until her appointment as justice in 2012. The prosecution respectfully offers the testimony of Justice Tang. 00:19:02.010 --> 00:19:03.410 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Una. 00:19:18.210 --> 00:19:37.210 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Kailan nagiging kwestyonable ang yaman ng isang opisyal? Paano kung hindi nakapangalan sa opisyal ang pera o property? Mas mataas ba ang pamantayan ng public accountability para sa presidente at bisepresidente? 00:19:38.760 --> 00:19:44.900 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Pwede bang magnegosyo ang bisepresidente o presidente habang sila ay nasa pwesto? 00:19:47.920 --> 00:20:05.590 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Paano kung may negosyo ang bisipresidente o presidente na may transaksyon sa gobyerno? At pang-anim, sasalien ba dapat makita ang financial status o assets, liabilities, at net worth ng isang lingkod bayan? 00:20:18.550 --> 00:21:59.610 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: But that is not what we are asking Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to do. Hindi po namin siya inihaharap upang sabihin kung guilty o not guilty ang vicepresidente. Hindi rin po siya naririto upang sabihin sa okuhukumang ito kung paano ito dapat magdesisyon. In our view, there are two compelling reasons why her testimony is important. The first has to do with this court. In these proceedings, the second has to do with our people, kung saan po nanggagaling ang kapangyarihan nitong impeachment court. An impeachment court is constitutionally unique. Sa ilalim ng ating konstitusyon, kayo lang po at walang ibang court ang may kapangyarihang litisin itong impeachment case. Unlike members of the regular judiciary, however, senators are not constitutionally required to be lawyers. Your Honors have taken on an extraordinary constitutional responsibility when you took your oath as Senator-Judges to, I quote, do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws of the Philippines. But Your Honors, the laws on public accountability even among lawyers are complicated. Malaking hamon kahit sa mga marurunong na abogado ang pag-unawa. sa mga batas tulad ng Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Civil Forfeiture Law, Code of Conduct of Public Officials, at lalo na po ang mga probisyon ng ating konstitusyon ukol sa public accountability. 00:22:11.210 --> 00:22:38.390 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: We believe that Justice Tang's decades of specialized experience can assist the Court in understanding the legal framework and assessing the evidence that we will be presenting thereafter. Pero po, may mas malalim pa pong dahilan kung bakit mahalaga ang testimonya ni Justice Tang. This is not an ordinary trial. Hindi po ito ordinaryong kaso. Nanonood ang sambayan ng Pilipino. 00:22:54.940 --> 00:23:11.390 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Nanonood ang sambay ng Pilipino dahil pera nila ang involved dito. Ang undeclared wealth, illegally acquired wealth, at pakinabang sa mga negosyo habang nakaupo sa pwesto ay yaman na dapat napunta Sa pagtatayo ng mga classroom. Sorry, 00:23:11.790 --> 00:23:17.070 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor. Again, this is already a speech on the part of a representative, Your Honor. It's highly improper. I'm about to 00:23:17.070 --> 00:23:34.850 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: wind up. As I was saying before I was interrupted, ito pong mga yaman na ito ay dapat napunta sa mga hospital, sa mga classroom, at mga sa pagbababa ng mga bilhin para sa kapakanan ng ating mga kababayan. So, again, sorry to 00:23:34.850 --> 00:23:35.470 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: object, Your Honor. 00:23:35.570 --> 00:23:37.630 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: I'm about to finish, if Your Honor's please. The 00:23:37.630 --> 00:23:42.810 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: continuing objection is noted. I'll kindly wind up, counsel. Attorney H.L. 00:23:43.820 --> 00:24:13.340 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Yes. If I may, Your Honor, just one last sentence. Our people have a right to know what the law provides when it comes to unexplained or illegally acquired wealth, sal-en, beneficial ownership, financial interests, and other relevant legal terms. That is why we believe it is important not only for the court, but also for the people from whom the authority of this court emanates to hear the testimony of Justice Amparo Tang. For these purposes, we are offering her testimony. 00:24:14.360 --> 00:24:16.060 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Attorney Mark, comment. 00:24:16.480 --> 00:24:20.540 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Comments, Your Honor. This is quite lengthy, so we beg the court's indulgence. 00:24:20.840 --> 00:24:22.680 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: I'll give you latitude as well, counsel. 00:24:22.960 --> 00:27:56.780 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: First and foremost, procedurally, the presentation of retired Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang is improper. Your Honor, this is the first time that the Vice President is being confronted with Justice Tang and her testimony. For the record, she is not listed in the pretrial order as witness and there is no reservation for a witness with her designation or background. So, for all intents and purposes, Justice Tang is a surprise witness which violates fair play and is prohibited under the rules. Second, We don't know her personal background and we don't know the extent of her testimony and the documents that she will identify, if any. The prosecution did not even furnish us with copies beforehand and this is already the third time that the prosecution has attempted to present a witness without first furnishing the defense with the materials to be used. Number three, the notice last Wednesday, September 9, 2026, was only to her name, previous official function, and general purpose of her testimony. But upon checking the articles of impeachment, which is the formal charge against the Vice President, her name and testimony were not even alleged therein. Therefore, without the proper link of Justice Tang to this case, and without having been provided in advance with the materials that will be used in her testimony, We could not have possibly predicted what she will testify on. Number 4. In view of the foregoing, it is our position that the presentation of Justice Tang already infringes on the Vice President's right to intelligently cross-examine her, and more importantly, violates the Vice President's constitutional right to due process, particularly her right to be promptly and completely informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. Number 5. Substantially, Justice Tang's presentation is likewise improper. She is not testifying as an amicus curiae, a sanction by Section 23, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability or CIPRA. With all due respect to her, the Court never intervened or gave its approval to her testimony on her expertise or field of specialization. So for this purpose, she is not a friend of the court. Number six, in the Philippines, being a legal expert is not an official designation and is quite subjective. We don't know the extent of her legal knowledge, her political background, whether she's neutral, DDS, loyalista or kakamping, which is hardly distinguishable nowadays, makabayan, or any other affiliation. Number seven, most importantly, by asking for her interpretations on legal principles, she is poised to make conclusions of law that only this honorable impeachment court is allowed to make. What the prosecution cannot do directly under the subjudice rule, it can and will do indirectly through the testimony of this witness. 00:28:18.070 --> 00:28:20.490 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: May I be allowed to respond? Oh, I'm 00:28:20.490 --> 00:28:20.610 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: sorry. 00:28:26.020 --> 00:28:32.400 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Before the Chair recognizes Attorney Chell to respond, what is the pleasure of Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo? 00:28:51.980 --> 00:29:48.490 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: After that, para himahime niya yung muna pag-usapan tungkol sa unexplained wealth, then we can ask intelligent questions based on her statements. So, is she an expert or legal witness, Atty. Chell? And then number two, is she going to make mere conclusions of law? Or baka better tulong sinabi ko kung at the end na lang natin siya i-present? Kasi like I said earlier, After we've listened to witnesses who can talk about factual matters of this article on explained wealth, that's when we can ask intelligent questions. So kung para sa akin, dahil wala naman talaga siyang knowledge, personal knowledge sa unexplained wealth na pag-uusap natin ngayon, baka pwede sabihin na lang siya. Unahin natin muna yung mga nakakaalam tungkol sa unexplained wealth, first-hand knowledge sa unexplained wealth ni BP at ng kanyang husband. If I were to be asked, that's my humble opinion. 00:30:00.000 --> 00:30:52.160 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: She is going to testify as an expert on the public accountability framework of our country. With respect to the conclusions of law, she will not be making any conclusions of law. Ang ipapaliwanag lang po niya, yung mga dapat malaman ng sambayan ng Pilipino at ng mismong court po na ito. For example, questions like kapag hindi tugma ang yaman, Nang isang opisyal sa lehiti mong kita, ano ang significance nun? Kapag ang property or pera ay hindi naman nakapangalan sa mismo, sa public official, dun pa ba ba natatapos ang pagsusuri? Ano ang significance ng nasalitang directly or indirectly pag sinabi ng konstitusyon na dapat bawal mag-participate sa business ang isang vicepresidente? Ano ba ang purpose ng SAL-N? Bakit ano ba yung mga kailangan malaman tungkol sa SAL-N? 00:30:54.330 --> 00:31:19.410 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Kaya po namin siya inuuna ay para sa mga darating na araw na may ibang witness na makikita po ng court at ng publiko ang napakaraming mga dokumento na halos hindi maintindihan, financial records, bank records, records from some government agencies ay madali na po ninyong maunawaan kung bakit nandun po yun. And that is why we want her to testify first. 00:31:19.670 --> 00:31:25.680 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Thank you for that clarification. And thank you for Mr. Fridas, Presiding Officer. Thank you. 00:31:25.700 --> 00:31:32.320 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Kindly hold off, Attorney Mark. Senator-Judge, Amy Marcos is recognized. What is your pleasure, ma'am? 00:31:32.460 --> 00:31:59.620 Sen. Imee Marcos: Yes, thank you very much, Presiding. Judge, tulad ng sinabi ni Sen. Tulfo at ng Depensa, nagtataka ako kung bakit narito ang ating testigo pagkat hindi naman siya magkukumpirma ng mga dokumento at wala naman na maidudulot na tulong tungkol sa mga facts. Will she testify to matters and questions of fact or to identify documents specifically? 00:32:01.170 --> 00:32:03.330 Sen. Imee Marcos: It's a question to the prosecution po. 00:32:03.850 --> 00:32:04.950 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Atty. Chel? 00:32:05.580 --> 00:32:25.440 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: She will not be speaking about any of the facts or documents that will be presented. She's merely being presented, Your Honor, good morning, to provide a legal framework to the court and to the Filipino people from whom the funds that are in question in this case emanate. 00:32:26.540 --> 00:33:01.820 Sen. Imee Marcos: We heard that and we appreciate your desire to educate the public but it's certainly not for the benefit of the judges. Kaya nagtataka ako kasi yung exception lamang ang pagkaalam ko kung expert witness, palibasa nga, ginagalang natin bilang dating Sandigan Bayan presiding judge, kung legal expert nga, hindi ba alam naman natin yung Jura Novitsa Curia na kinakailangan Is she going to testify on a highly specialized aspect of foreign law? 00:33:02.470 --> 00:33:04.790 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: She will, if I may, if you're honest, please. 00:33:05.070 --> 00:33:12.210 Sen. Imee Marcos: Because if it's about the Constitution and accountability, palagay ko, alam naman ng mga juez yan. Mas lalong alam 00:33:12.210 --> 00:33:20.530 Sen. Imee Marcos: ng publiko. Kung saka-sakali opinion lamang yan, edi nag-prescon. At kung amicus curiae, balik na lang sa miyerkoles. 00:33:22.290 --> 00:33:22.850 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: The 00:33:22.850 --> 00:33:24.290 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Honorable Diokno may respond. 00:33:24.590 --> 00:35:29.810 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Your Honor, she will testify to provide a legal framework for the court and for the public to understand the evidence that will come later. If I may, if you're honest, please, why is it important that we do this? Yun pong mga nanonood ng mga kababayan natin ay hindi lang po sila spectator. Sila ay nanonood dahil yung pera po na nanggagaling sa kanilang buwis, sin tax, VAT, income tax, ay yun po ang involved dito sa issue ng unexplained wealth. So they are not just people watching. Meron po silang karapatan na malaman kung ano bang ibig sabihin ng Financial interest. Ano bang ibig sabihin ng directly or indirectly participating in business? Ano bang ibig sabihin ng conflict of interest? At marami pang ibang bagay na tatalakayan po natin ngayong umaga at sa mga darating na araw. Real transparency, if your honors please, is not just about live streaming this trial. Real transparency means that the people can understand what is happening. Now, as far as the court is concerned, if your honors please, Even among lawyers, I have been practicing for more than 30 years, hindi po namin lahat nauunamaan kung ano yung mga intricacies ng public accountability, Republic Act 3019, Republic Act 1379, Republic Act 6713, yung napakarami mga provision ng Constitution, ay kahit po kami, hindi po kami pamilyar sa mga bagay na ito. So if even among lawyers, This is not an easy field to understand. Ang paniwala po namin, kasama po sa tungkulin namin bilang prosekusyon, na ilabas po ito at maipaliwanag ito. Justice Tang is a disinterested witness. She is here because she was compelled by a subpoena issued by this court, not because she is volunteering to testify. Thank you. 00:35:32.890 --> 00:35:34.330 Sen. Imee Marcos: Yes, Presiding Judge, please. 00:35:36.380 --> 00:36:05.580 Sen. Imee Marcos: We are aware that the exception is when the witness will testify to a foreign law or perhaps on a highly specialized legal framework. Alam naman natin ang konstitusyon at ang mga batas tungkol sa accountability at gusto ko lang itanong, did the court actually request for any assistance in understanding the said specialized legal framework? Palagay ko, presiding judge, wala naman tayong request for assistance. 00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:08.480 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We have not yet done that. Yes. 00:36:08.600 --> 00:36:43.350 Sen. Imee Marcos: And will she testify on matters that require special knowledge, experience, training or education over and above what most lawyers or practitioners possess? Kasi alam naman natin na talagang konstitusyon ang pag-uusapan at yung mga batas na alam naman nating lahat. Kaya pinagtatakahan ko kung bakit kung talagang kailangan natin ang tulong ng magiting nating juez eh dapat sa miyerkoles na lang bilang amig oscuriay. Yun ang aking tingin. 00:36:57.820 --> 00:36:59.920 Sen. Imee Marcos: May I make one last question, please? 00:37:00.180 --> 00:37:00.560 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Yes, 00:37:00.560 --> 00:37:13.540 Sen. Imee Marcos: please. Yes, the prosecution has asserted that the witness or the proposed witness is a disinterested party. Is that correct? 00:37:13.980 --> 00:37:14.560 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Yes, Your Honor. 00:37:14.820 --> 00:37:47.130 Sen. Imee Marcos: Yes, I would just like to bring your attention to our subpoena. And in the request for subpoena ad testificandum, it's very clear. that the justice is served at the address of the office of Akbayan Partylist Representative Jose Manuel Chell Diokno, Room 502, South Wing, in the Batasan. Is this a disinterested party indeed? 00:37:47.570 --> 00:37:50.110 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I be allowed to answer? Honorable 00:37:50.110 --> 00:37:55.650 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Diokno may respond with the indulgence of Senator-Judge Sotto just to complete the interjection of Senator-Judge Aimee. 00:37:55.920 --> 00:38:35.850 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, Your Honor. The reason why the subpoena was directed through this representation was for the protection of the honorable justice. Alam po natin ngayon na pag nalalaman ng mga personal sensitive information under the Data Privacy Law ay maaari pong gamitin niyo na makatanggap siya ng kung ano-anong bashing sa internet at kung ano-ano pa. There are also security issues involved and that is the only reason why it was served through me. Ginagawa po namin yun even in ordinary cases simply for purposes of security and protection. Yun po. 00:38:36.760 --> 00:38:48.760 Sen. Imee Marcos: With all due respect, mahirap pong paniwalaan kasi wala naman natitira sa Kongreso at wala naman tayong alam na threat kung legal opinion lang naman ang idudulog. Maraming salamat. 00:39:19.290 --> 00:39:22.040 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Bawal ba yun? May pera ka sa bangko? 00:39:23.580 --> 00:40:04.370 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Eh yun mga gusto namin kanina pinag-uusapan namin dito at malinawan natin once and for all kasi hindi naman kami lahat kasing dunong ninyo. Saan saan lang kami graduate eh. Hindi ba? Pero mahalagay dinadala namin kay mga kababayan natin kaya tayo inupurito as an impeachment court. Saka meron tayong... Ako kasi may mentalidad ako eh. Kung ako ay nasa defense eh. Kung ako, not guilty, you can throw at me even the kitchen sink. I don't care. Bato mo sa akin lahat kung anong kailangan. Kung ako, higangay walang pananagutan. Kaya magandang marinig natin din yung mga ganitong mga kabagay sapagkat kami mismo, ako mismo eh. 00:40:05.910 --> 00:40:54.040 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Gusto ko malaman, kung may pera ako sa bangko, alam ko sa'ng galing, paano na yun? Masama ba yun na marami kong pera? Yung mga ganun mga bagay. Sige, kayaan na natin, Mr. President. Sandali na lang naman siguro ito. That is my opinion, of course. I know it is contrasting to the opinion of my other colleagues, but I just want to place that on record. Para ang mentality sigurado ng karamihan ng mga kababayan natin, pakinggan natin. Paano nga ba yan? Ganun yung iniisip nila. Di ba ba? So, kung meron tayong mga kasama na ayaw at tago-object ng depensa, ay ikokus natin o kaya butuhan natin, Mr. President, because that is what the impeachment court is for. Thank 00:40:54.040 --> 00:40:59.560 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: you. Thank you, Senator-Judge Sotto, duly noted. Senator-Judge Hontiveros, what is your pleasure, ma'am? 00:41:04.020 --> 00:41:06.820 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Maikling manifestation lamang po, Mr. Presiding Officer. 00:41:08.370 --> 00:41:14.250 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Salamat po. Paraphrasing yung ilan sa mga tanong ko sana sa witness na ito. 00:41:16.010 --> 00:42:38.740 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Naniniwala po kasi ako na yung impeachment court at yung publiko Magbe-benefit sana sa expertise ng isang dating Sandigan Bayan Justice. Dahil Sandigan Bayan po yung may mandatong litisin ang mga diumanong tiwaling mga opisyal. Kaya inaasahan ko po at inaasahan pa rin na makakatulong nga po ito sa pag-intindi natin kung paano harapin yung mga kaso ng unexplained wealth. Dagdag pa po, Mr. Presiding Officer, sa pagkaintindi ko po, Ididiscuss lamang sana ng witness ay mga general principles. Pag-uusapan lamang niya po kung anong sinasabi sa batas, kung paano ito karaniwang pinatutupad. Kaya wala po akong nakikitang potential harm para sa respondent. At huli po, Mr. Presiding Officer, gaya ng dati, Bibigyan naman po ang defense ng oportunidad na mag-conduct ng cross-examination para i-challenge itong witness. At kung payagan po natin ito, may equal opportunity rin po ang defense na mag-presenta ng expert witnesses sa panahon nila. So sa tingin ko po, Mr. Presiding Officer, makakatulong sana sa ating deliberasyon ang ganitong inputs na Manggagaling sa parehong paning. Salamat po, Mr. President. 00:43:04.650 --> 00:43:13.810 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Senator Judge Lacson. Before the Chair makes a ruling, Chair would like to hear for one last time from Attorney Mark and then from the Honorable Chell. 00:43:14.690 --> 00:44:53.110 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Thank you, Your Honor. Rule 129, Section 1 of the Rules on Evidence. This talks about judicial notice when mandatory. It reads, a court shall take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence. of official acts of legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines. This means, Your Honor, that ipinagpapalagay na ang mga hukuman ay may kaalaman na sa mga batas at hindi na ito kailangang ipaliwanag ng sino mang testigo. And, basing on the offer of testimony, the witness will really Tackle on questions of law. And her presentation already elicits a legal conclusion, which is not her function but the court's. Besides, as admitted to by the prosecution, she is not privy to this case or the facts thereof, and she has not heard the evidence from both sides, so she cannot intelligently and impartially give her legal opinions. Your Honor, legal opinions do not operate in a vacuum. They're supposed to be applied to the specific facts and circumstances of a particular case. So, with all due respect to Justice Tang, her legal opinions would be rendered useless if she does not know any of the facts of this case. Number two, Your Honor, on legal conclusions, there is a danger if we allow this kind of presentation. 00:44:54.810 --> 00:45:52.330 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Will the court also- So allow the defense to just present any legal expert in our opinion. This is not caring about what is thrown at us, Your Honor. It is about preserving the Constitution and what our laws state. As regards the subpoena, Your Honor, we highlight the point made by Senator-Judge Marcos. That it was indeed addressed to the office of the Akbayan Party, Your Honor. And in response to what Representative Jocno stated a while ago, I don't think this is actually normal in regular courts. It is the duty of the court to issue the sabbina and serve it to the witness. It is never the duty of the prosecution lawyer. Finally, Your Honor, again with all due respect, 00:45:54.090 --> 00:46:39.080 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Retired Justice Cabotajitang is a Sandigan Bayan Justice. She was never a Supreme Court Justice. And as she knows, the decision of Sandigan Bayan is subject to the review, repeal, and modification of the Supreme Court. In fact, there are cases where Justice Cabotajitang interpreted the law and the Supreme Court had... A totally different interpretation. Moreover, Your Honor, she was quoted in saying in one of the Supreme Court Justices, I think this pertains to the Arroyo case, Your Honor. 00:46:41.830 --> 00:46:48.270 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And she said that, and I don't want to misquote her, so I'll just read my notes, Your Honor. 00:46:54.010 --> 00:47:00.000 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May we know the, I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honor, may I just know the citation of the case? We will 00:47:00.000 --> 00:47:01.580 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: provide that. That's 00:47:01.580 --> 00:47:03.500 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: what he's checking on our counsel. 00:47:03.640 --> 00:47:35.550 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: But the quote is, the Sandigan Bayan will not make any comment on it since the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land and the final arbiter of all justiciable controversies. The Sandigan Bayan is duty-bound to respect and abide by it. With respect, Your Honor, to the position of this witness, Your Honor, she is even aware, Your Honor, that In her decisions, it is subject, Your Honor, to the reversal of the Supreme Court in the appropriate cases. That would be all, Your Honor. 00:47:57.790 --> 00:50:04.470 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Bawal sa presidente at vicepresidente yung makilahok sa negosyo. Pero kami mga kongresista ay wala namang ganun prohibisyon. The law will not tell us that. We need somebody to explain that to us. Bakit po napakahalaga ng mga nakalagay na presumption on unexplained wealth sa Republic Act 3019? Ano bang ibig sabihin ng presumption? Hindi po sasabihin yan ng batas. So if we're only talking about judicial notice, I don't think that that is a sufficient argument to overcome the compelling need to present justice down. Second, if you're honest please, I did not get the citation you were saying. There was an allegation here. That the Supreme Court made a totally different interpretation. Due process is also entitled to the prosecution. We deserve to know what case that is. Third, I'm not asking for that right now if you're honest, please. I'm just pointing it out. Third point, and I'm near the end already. With due respect to the defense, wala naman po talaga silang obligasyon na linawin ang batas. Actually, for them, It would be tactically, I'm not speaking of this particular panel of defense lawyers, but for defense lawyers in general, they couldn't care less what the law is. Pero para sa amin po sa prosecution, under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, ang amin tungkulin, our primary duty, is not to secure a conviction. It is to see that justice is done. Justice cannot be done if the law is obscure. Kung di malinaw sa judge kung ano ang pinagbabawal ng batas, paano magiging makatarungan ang kanyang paghuhusga? Kung hindi malinaw sa sambayan ng Pilipino kung ano ang pinagbabawal ng batas, paano nila malalaman kung dapat mapanagot ang respondent po dito sa kasong ito? Kaya, didiin lang po natin na sa aming palagay ay napakahalaga ng pagtetestigo ni Justice Amparo Tang. 00:50:05.510 --> 00:50:05.950 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: One 00:50:05.950 --> 00:50:06.950 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: last rejoinder, Your Honor. 00:50:08.030 --> 00:50:12.250 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Final rebuttal or sir rebuttal, Atty. Mark. Then the chair will make a ruling. 00:50:13.140 --> 00:50:34.420 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Just a short rebuttal. I stand corrected. It was actually a newspaper publication and we published it on the screen. But more importantly, Your Honor, it is not true that we couldn't care less about the laws. In fact, we care about the strict implementation of the Constitution and the laws in this case. Thank you, Your Honor. 00:50:34.880 --> 00:50:57.840 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: I confirm it's a news publication. We tried to look for the citation as well, Atty. Mark, and it is indeed a news publication. Before the Chair makes a ruling, Atty. Chell, will you be asking specifics about this particular case to the witness, Justice Cabotaje-Tang, or will you be asking general principles pertaining to the law that may be applicable to the specific facts of this case? 00:50:58.120 --> 00:50:59.880 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: The latter, Mr. Presiding Officer. 00:51:00.260 --> 00:51:02.420 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So walang specifics tungkol sa kaso? 00:51:02.580 --> 00:51:03.020 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Wala po. 00:51:03.290 --> 00:51:17.120 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So whatever answer she will give by way of opinion, should you be able to qualify her as an expert, would be generically applied to what the law says and not specifically to the respondent? 00:51:17.320 --> 00:51:18.240 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Yes, Your Honor. 00:51:18.480 --> 00:51:19.940 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: And that is clear, counsel? 00:51:20.340 --> 00:51:21.020 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Yes, Your Honor. 00:51:21.280 --> 00:51:25.940 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Chair will now make a ruling. Sorry, the counsels for the parties raised several points. 00:51:29.040 --> 00:51:31.680 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Justice Tang being a surprise witness. 00:51:33.420 --> 00:51:53.100 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: There is a reservation to present additional and substitute witnesses as the circumstances may warrant as contained in the pretrial order. The prosecution promised in their pretrial order they will be presenting 15 witnesses in 12 days. If they want to charge this witness against their 15 witnesses in 12 days, that is totally up to them. 00:52:04.400 --> 00:52:04.940 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: 2. 00:52:06.880 --> 00:52:15.440 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Judicial notice. Indeed, we take judicial notice mandatorily of the laws but not what the law means in a specific or particular case. 3. 00:52:18.320 --> 00:53:18.940 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Although she may be qualified as an expert subject to cross, Whatever Justice Cabotajitang will say is not binding on the courts and her opinion is not conclusive upon the courts. As decided by the Supreme Court in Tortogna v. Gregorio, GR No. 202612, dated 1-17-2018, and in Caballos v. Interstate Estate of Mercado, GR No. 1558-56, dated May 2004. Also for the advice of counsel for the respondent, Attorney Mark, you may use the guidelines raised in Andal v. Andal. I'm sure you're aware of it on the psychological incapacity in Article 36. The guidelines raised in Fry v. U.S. and Dobbert v. Merrill Doe insofar as either discrediting or showing the absence or lack 00:53:24.720 --> 00:53:27.520 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Verified vocabulary. 00:53:36.340 --> 00:54:28.930 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Verified vocabulary. To be made by the Honorable Jocno. So the court will allow it. The comment of the respondent, rather, counsel-respondent is duly noted. And if you want counsel, you can make your continuing objection of record in regard to this witness, but still subject to cross. And as a final note, the court ruled earlier, last week if I believe, that we will give you the opportunity not to cross yet today. Given that, again, she was not mentioned in the pre-trial order, that is subject to your discretion. We can proceed to the next witness today. And you can do your cross tomorrow for this witness, depending on whether or not you are prepared to do so after she testifies this morning or until this afternoon. You can postpone your cross-counsel. Yes, Atty. Mark. 00:54:29.110 --> 00:54:34.930 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor, we will submit to the ruling of this court and we register a continuing objection to the presentation of this witness. 00:54:34.930 --> 00:54:39.620 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So noted. Your witness, attorney Chell, you may proceed when you're ready with this witness. Yes, 00:54:39.620 --> 00:54:41.680 Sen. Imee Marcos: presiding judge. I'm 00:54:41.680 --> 00:54:44.060 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: sorry, yes, Senator-Judge Aimee, my apologies. 00:54:44.340 --> 00:54:44.460 Sen. Imee Marcos: Yes, 00:54:44.460 --> 00:55:29.200 Sen. Imee Marcos: I just wanted to provide the citation that did not seem to be evident to everyone. It's a landmark case, everyone knows it. It overturned the Sandigan-Bayans denial of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's demurrer to evidence regarding the PCSO plunder case Macapagal-Arroyo v. The People, GR No. 220598, consolidated with Aguas v. This was a clear overturning of the Sandigan ruling and it was promulgated July 19, 2016. Its official citation in Philippine reports is 790 Philippines 367. Thank you. By way of information, Lampo. 00:55:29.320 --> 00:55:35.100 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Senator Judge Marcos. Duly noted. Attorney Chell, the Honorable Chell, your witness. 00:55:35.660 --> 00:55:45.820 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Before I proceed, Your Honor, may I ask that Attorney Mico Al-Rashid E. Ringa, who will be assisting me today, be recognized as my assisting lawyer? 00:55:47.020 --> 00:55:53.840 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So recognized and on the part of the respondent as well, whoever they may assign as assisting counsel in relation to this witness. 00:55:54.220 --> 00:56:01.180 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I also seek the court's permission for the witness, if necessary, to refer to her notes on the stand? 00:56:01.680 --> 00:56:08.780 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Si may do so as long as she so informs the court beforehand. The court will always allow it. You may do so ma'am whenever but kindly inform the court. 00:56:09.540 --> 00:56:11.280 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I proceed if your honor please? 00:56:11.700 --> 00:56:12.500 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You may proceed counsel. 00:56:13.980 --> 00:56:19.860 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: For the record madam witness, kindly state your name, civil status, and profession. 00:56:21.580 --> 00:56:28.620 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I'm Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, married and retired presiding justice of the Sandigan Bayan. 00:56:28.900 --> 00:56:43.600 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Alam po ninyo, sa TikTok, FB, at IG, ako po ay nagpo-post ng mga explainer sa batas. Pero ngayon po ako ang magtatanong sa inyo at kayo naman po sana ang mag-explain. Okay po ba yun, Justice? 00:56:44.440 --> 00:56:45.180 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 00:56:45.540 --> 00:56:55.850 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Simulan po natin yung ating huntahan sa inyong credentials. Justice, ano po yung inyong highest educational attainment? 00:56:56.350 --> 00:57:00.890 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Bachelor of Laws and then later on, kinonvert into JD. 00:57:01.430 --> 00:57:04.230 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Saan po kayo nag-aaral ng law? 00:57:04.630 --> 00:57:07.910 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I finished law at the San Beda College. 00:57:08.670 --> 00:57:11.090 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Kailan po kayo natapos ng pag-aaral ng law? 00:57:11.430 --> 00:57:12.950 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I finished in 1979. 00:57:13.750 --> 00:57:16.230 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At kailan naman po kayo nag-bar exam? 00:57:16.750 --> 00:57:18.890 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I became a lawyer in 1980. 00:57:19.880 --> 00:57:21.140 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ibig sabihin nag-bar 00:57:21.140 --> 00:57:21.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: kayo noong 1979? I 00:57:21.720 --> 00:57:26.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: took the bar exams in 1979 and took my oath as a lawyer in 1980. 00:57:26.840 --> 00:57:30.960 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, madam. Ano po yung unan niyong trabaho bilang abogado? 00:57:32.300 --> 00:57:38.820 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: After passing the bar, I joined the Supreme Court as judicial assistant where I stayed there for two years. 00:57:39.820 --> 00:57:43.580 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Pagkatapos po noon ay saan naman kayo tumuloy sa pagtatrabaho? 00:57:43.820 --> 00:57:48.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I moved to the office of the Solicitor General as a trial attorney. 00:57:49.710 --> 00:57:53.810 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I know just very briefly what a trial attorney does at the OSG? 00:57:54.390 --> 00:58:01.330 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, a trial attorney litigates. He or she goes to court, prepares pleading. 00:58:02.690 --> 00:58:14.110 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Tama po. Naalala ko minsan nagkalaban po yata tayo sa ilan mga kaso, if I remember correctly. Yes. Kayo po ba ay napromote mula sa trial attorney? 00:58:14.760 --> 00:58:26.170 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Actually, I rose from the ranks from trial 1, 2, 3. Then I became solicitor 1, 2, 3, 4, and until I was appointed as Assistant Solicitor General. 00:58:26.510 --> 00:58:33.810 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Assistant Solicitor General. Ang pinakamataas po ng opisyal sa Solicitor General's office ay ang Solicitor General, hindi po ba? 00:58:33.950 --> 00:58:34.550 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Tama po. 00:58:34.710 --> 00:58:39.470 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At yung Assistant Solicitor General, saan po siya sa ranking po ng opisina? 00:58:39.730 --> 00:58:41.410 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: He is the Chief of Office po. 00:58:41.830 --> 00:58:43.870 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: The Solicitor General or the Assistant? 00:58:44.340 --> 00:58:46.280 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, the Solicitor General. 00:58:46.640 --> 00:58:48.460 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: How about the Assistant Solicitor General? 00:58:48.840 --> 00:58:53.200 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Directly below the Solicitor General are the Assistant Solicitors General. 00:58:53.640 --> 00:58:57.660 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: So, ibig sabihin na number two po ang mga Assistant Solicitors General. 00:58:58.120 --> 00:58:58.680 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 00:58:58.840 --> 00:58:59.180 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. 00:59:01.130 --> 00:59:05.590 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Hanggang kailan po kayo naglingkod sa Office of the Solicitor General? 00:59:06.330 --> 00:59:11.130 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I served the Office of the Solicitor General for almost 31 years. 00:59:11.900 --> 00:59:23.180 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Wow. 31 years. Estimate lang po, sa loob ng 31 years na yan, baka mahihirapan po kayo. Pero mga ilang kaso ang nahawakan ninyo sa OSG? 00:59:24.360 --> 00:59:27.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: More than a thousand cases, maybe. 00:59:27.900 --> 00:59:32.980 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Bakit po hanggang 2012 lang kayo naglingkod sa Office of the Solicitor General? 00:59:33.540 --> 00:59:38.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I was appointed as Associate Justice of the Sandigan Bayan. 00:59:39.250 --> 00:59:47.710 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sa Supreme Court po meron mga justice, associate justice at meron din isang chief justice. Sa Sandigan Bayan po ba ganun din? 00:59:48.070 --> 00:59:52.120 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Wala po. Ang meron sa amin ay presiding justice. 00:59:52.720 --> 00:59:59.980 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Para po sa kaalaman ng lahat, ano po yung pagkaiba ng justice ng Sandigan Bayan at presiding justice? 01:00:01.380 --> 01:00:17.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ang presiding justice ay ang tinatawag na primus inter pares, the first among equals. Pero in terms of formal rank, pare-pareho naman kami, except that the presiding justice does some administrative work and leads the court. 01:00:25.020 --> 01:00:31.940 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Mayroon pa ba kayong na-appoint din po ba kayo sa yung sinasabi po ninyong first among equals? 01:00:33.180 --> 01:00:34.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:00:34.860 --> 01:00:39.100 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Kailan po kayo na-appoint bilang presiding justice ng Sandigan Bayan? 01:00:39.360 --> 01:00:39.920 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: 2013. 01:00:40.720 --> 01:00:43.580 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At hanggang kailan po kayo naglingkod bilang PJ? 01:00:44.060 --> 01:00:46.560 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Until November 8, 2024. 01:00:47.580 --> 01:00:51.760 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Why was it only until 2024 that you served in the court? 01:00:52.860 --> 01:00:54.160 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I retired, sir. 01:00:55.460 --> 01:01:09.660 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sa madaling salita po, Justice, you devoted your entire career as a lawyer from 1980 up to your retirement in 2024. That is 44 years to public service as a legal professional. Would that be a fair statement? 01:01:10.100 --> 01:01:10.660 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Tama po. 01:01:11.320 --> 01:01:20.200 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sana po all. Sana maraming abogado ang tumulad sa inyo. Asensya po, Your Honors, hindi po ako makapigil. Kayo po ba ay nagtuturo ng law? 01:01:21.190 --> 01:01:28.550 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. I teach law in the San Beda. University as well as the University of Santo Tomas. 01:01:28.650 --> 01:01:32.330 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ano pong subject o subjects ang itinuturo ninyo sa law? 01:01:32.790 --> 01:01:43.410 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I teach Criminal Law 1 and 2 and Criminal Law Review in the San Pedro College of Law. And I teach Criminal Law 1 and 2 at the University of Santo Tomas. 01:01:44.170 --> 01:02:00.400 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Kasama po ba sa Criminal Law yung mga batas laban sa korupsyon tulad ng Republic Act? 3019, Republic Act 1379, Republic Act 6713, Code of Responsive Conduct of Government Officials. 01:02:00.640 --> 01:02:01.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:02:02.320 --> 01:02:09.880 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At ano naman po yung naging involvement ninyo kung meron man sa mga nakaraang bar examinations? 01:02:10.780 --> 01:02:17.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, I was a bar examiner in 2015 and also last 2025 in political law. 01:02:17.760 --> 01:02:27.290 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Hindi po lahat ng tao ay nakaka... Ang maalam kung ano yung ginagawa ng isang bar examiner. Pwede po ninyong pakipaliwanag po yan? 01:02:27.750 --> 01:02:50.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, a bar examiner, if chosen by the bar chairperson in the Supreme Court, is asked to submit questions to the bar chairperson. And we check actually the test papers, not the answers, it's now online, of the bar examinees. 01:02:50.980 --> 01:02:58.960 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sabi po ninyo, naglingkod kayo bilang bar examiner noong 2015 at 2025. Ano pong subject sa mga bar subjects? 01:02:59.500 --> 01:03:00.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Political law po. 01:03:00.920 --> 01:03:07.200 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Political law. Kasama po ba sa political law yung constitutional law, yung ating 1987 Constitution? 01:03:07.740 --> 01:03:08.380 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:03:08.790 --> 01:03:17.480 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At yung po bang mga provision ng Constitution, halimbawa tungkol sa public accountability ay kasama po rin po yun, sakop po yun? 01:03:17.680 --> 01:03:18.260 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:03:18.320 --> 01:03:19.000 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. 01:03:20.910 --> 01:03:35.450 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Move on. Well, balikan ko po ng konti yung inyong paglilingkod nung nasa Office of the Solicitor General po kayo. May experience po ba kayo noong nasa OSG kayo sa mga kasong unexplained or ill-gotten wealth? 01:03:36.120 --> 01:03:44.470 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. I handled, among other lawyers in the Office of the Solicitor General, the so-called ill-gotten wealth cases. 01:03:45.300 --> 01:03:49.940 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: In what capacity did you handle those ill-gotten wealth cases, Justice? 01:03:51.760 --> 01:04:11.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: As a solicitor, I handle those cases but when PCGG chairman Sabio took the helm of the PCGG, he created a PCGG-OSG task force where I was designated as the chairperson of the task force. 01:04:12.020 --> 01:04:18.200 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Bilang chairperson po ng PCGG-OSG task force. Ano-ano po yung ginagawa ninyo? 01:04:18.440 --> 01:04:20.520 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Objection, Your Honor. May we know the relevance, Your Honor. 01:04:21.040 --> 01:04:23.200 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Establishing qualifications, if Your Honor is pleased. 01:04:24.080 --> 01:04:25.360 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Overruled. Witness may answer. 01:04:26.560 --> 01:04:35.700 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I reviewed the pleadings of The cases related to those cases. 01:04:36.100 --> 01:04:48.920 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Estimate lang po, mga ilang oras ang inilaan ninyo sa mga kasong ill-gotten wealth na nabanggit ninyo bilang solicitor at later bilang chairperson ng task force? Estimate lang po. 01:04:49.630 --> 01:04:53.110 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Probably thousand of hours po. 01:04:56.530 --> 01:05:02.970 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sunod pong tanong, how about civil forfeiture cases involving money laundering? Nakahawag din po kayo ng ganun? 01:05:03.110 --> 01:05:14.670 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes sir, because the OSG actually is lawyer or acts as a lawyer and files actually these petitions for civil forfeiture with appropriate court. 01:05:14.990 --> 01:05:22.800 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: So nung time po na yun... And that is the situation, isn't it, that the OSJ may hold? Yes. Let's 01:05:22.800 --> 01:05:35.780 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: go back to the time when you were the justice and presiding justice of Sandigan Bayan. What is the difference between Sandigan Bayan and other courts? What is unique about it? 01:05:36.680 --> 01:06:03.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, the Sandigan Bayan is a unique court simply because it is both a trial court and appellate court. Pero siyang original jurisdiction and appellate court at the same time. And it is a special court because it tries mostly criminal cases involving high government officials and even private individuals actually who are alleged to have conspired with them in the commission of these crimes. 01:06:05.140 --> 01:06:28.020 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: More or less lang po, again, just an estimate for the benefit of the court and the public. How many cases more or less did you hear involving the application of Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Civil Forfeiture of Unexplained Wealth under Republic Act 1379, and the Code of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees under Republic Act 6713? 01:06:29.930 --> 01:06:33.950 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: All in all, probably around 700 cases, sir. 01:06:35.220 --> 01:06:45.600 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: That must have taken you a lot of time po to hear and decide those cases? Mga ilang oras kaya ang inilaan ninyo Para sa pagdinig at pagdesisyon ng mga kasong iyon? 01:06:47.490 --> 01:06:50.390 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Probably mga thousands of hours din po. 01:06:51.200 --> 01:07:07.060 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Just to, kung susumahin lang po natin, sa loob ng 42 years na kayo ay lingkot bayan, how many hours of that did you spend in terms of studying and analyzing cases of anti-corruption? 01:07:10.560 --> 01:07:13.040 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Baka mahigit 5,000 hours or more. 01:07:13.360 --> 01:07:32.870 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, thank you po Justice. I hope, Your Honor, the defense will not object to my next question kahit may pagka maritest po siya. Ito naman po ay para sa mga law student na nangangarap maglingkod bilang maestrado. Nung nasa OSG po kayo, sino po yung mga nakasabay ninyo na later na-appoint sa judiciary? 01:07:34.250 --> 01:07:53.740 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Marami po. Dalawang nasa Supreme Court ngayon. Yung isang presiding justice ng Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals. Yung nag-retire din ng Court of Tax Appeals presiding justice. At sa Sandigan Bayan, may mga incumbents din po akong mga nakasama nun sa OSG. 01:07:54.570 --> 01:08:01.230 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: If your honor, please, I have finished questioning the witness on her qualifications. May I proceed to the substance of her testimony? 01:08:02.890 --> 01:08:03.930 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You may proceed, counsel. 01:08:04.150 --> 01:08:08.950 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, your honor. Okay, panaman po kayo. Please have some water if you need to. 01:08:12.660 --> 01:08:33.640 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Justice Tang, lagi po natin naririnig yung mga salitang unexplained wealth, hidden wealth, ill-gotten wealth. Para sa mga ordinaryong Pilipino, parang magkapareho lang naman ng mga terms na yan. Sa mata po ng batas, may pagkakaiba po ba yung hidden wealth, unexplained wealth, at ill-gotten wealth? 01:08:34.160 --> 01:08:37.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: May pagkakaiba po sila. 01:08:38.080 --> 01:08:39.520 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ano po yung pagkakaiba? 01:08:39.860 --> 01:09:21.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, ang hidden wealth. simply means tagong yaman. Ang unexplained wealth naman, this is governed by RA 1379 in relation to RA 3019. Ang ill-gotten wealth naman ay governed by EO numbers 1, 2, 14. Makikita mo rin ito sa transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution. At yung definition niyan ay matatagpuan rin sa Section 1D ng Republic Act No. 7080 or the Plunder Law as amended. 01:09:21.920 --> 01:09:33.300 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: So kapag binigyan po ang isang lingkod bayan, let's say lang po ha, ng isang bribe, let's say ng 50 million pesos at tinago niya sa pangalan ng ibang tao, hidden wealth po yun. 01:09:33.380 --> 01:09:33.960 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Objection, Your Honor. 01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:34.560 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Speculative. 01:09:35.680 --> 01:09:37.420 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Um, what if I counsel? 01:09:38.590 --> 01:09:39.930 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I respond? I know where 01:09:39.930 --> 01:09:40.470 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: you're getting it. 01:09:41.030 --> 01:09:48.150 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Yes, Your Honor. Maari po ba kayo magbigay ng halimbawa ng hidden wealth na sinasabi niyong tagong yaman? 01:09:49.620 --> 01:10:01.950 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: For example, a public officer owns, actually owns a property but that property is registered in the name of another person. 01:10:03.070 --> 01:10:05.230 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Yun po ang nakatagong yaman? Yes. 01:10:05.270 --> 01:10:05.730 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:10:06.070 --> 01:10:09.910 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Maari po ba kayo magbigay ng isang halimbawa ng unexplained wealth? 01:10:11.220 --> 01:10:18.810 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Unexplained wealth is actually defined in Section 2 of RA 1379. 01:10:22.220 --> 01:10:30.480 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Babalikan po natin yung puntong yan mamaya-maya. Huling tunang po on this point lang. How about an example for ill-gotten wealth? 01:10:31.590 --> 01:10:34.810 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ill-gotten wealth according to EO No. 1 01:10:36.320 --> 01:10:49.550 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ayun ay mga kayamanan or yaman that was acquired through illegal means like through bribery, misappropriation, malversation, and the like. 01:10:49.850 --> 01:10:58.670 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, Justice. Ipakita po natin, request lang po sa tech booth, sa screen ang Section 8 ng Republic Act 3019. 01:11:00.500 --> 01:11:22.360 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Kita po ninyo, Justice, napakahaba niyan tapos puro English na mahirap intindihin. It's very hard even just to read this. Mga bigatin po na salita sa Ingles pa ang ginagamit at nakakaalam mga abugado. Pwede po natin gawin simple ito. Kailan nagiging questionable sa ilalim ng batas ang yaman ng isang opisyal? 01:11:24.020 --> 01:11:43.680 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ayon sa batas, ito'y questionable if during the incumbency of the public official, he acquired wealth that is grossly disproportionate. To his salary, other lawful income and income generated from his legitimately acquired property. 01:12:05.820 --> 01:12:09.660 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Tutuong kayamanan dun sa kanyang lehitimong kita. Tama po yun? 01:12:09.800 --> 01:12:10.160 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes. 01:12:11.540 --> 01:12:17.360 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Paano malalaman ng pamahalaan kung ang isang opisyal ay meron ng unexplained wealth? 01:12:18.400 --> 01:12:26.000 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ito'y karaniwan malalaman kung ang isang opisyal ay nagsumiti ng true and accurate sell-in. 01:12:27.360 --> 01:12:39.800 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ah, dun pa pala nakikita. Thank you for that justice. Ano-ano mga bagay naman ang dapat tingnan? ng mga nag-iimbestiga ng unexplained wealth maliban po sa SAL-N. 01:12:41.520 --> 01:12:46.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yung lifestyle, IT, yung income tax returns. 01:12:47.830 --> 01:13:20.670 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: How about the records, for example, pertaining to the financial status of that person? Objection, leading. Can you modify, counsel? If you're honest, please, the question is not leading, it's how about. I'm asking the witness. But anyway, I will replace. Can you modify, counsel? Yes, thank you. Nabanggit po ninyo kanina na tinitingnan po ninyo yung SAL-N, tinitingnan po ninyo yung ITR. What other records, if any, does an investigator look at when it comes to unexplained wealth? 01:13:21.270 --> 01:13:29.330 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Even the properties and assets of the spouse and the children under 18 years of age. 01:13:29.670 --> 01:14:04.240 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor, sorry to interrupt. Yes, Attorney Mark. Just a query, Your Honor. Actually, this is the danger that we were concerned about because I don't think the prosecution qualified this witness as an expert witness. Therefore, whatever opinion that she will share with us today is not expert opinion but just her personal opinion. And that is the danger of presenting her because she might present her own interpretations of the law, again, which is the function of this court, Your Honor. 01:14:05.770 --> 01:14:08.590 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So we're objecting to this line of questions. 01:14:09.110 --> 01:14:24.150 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Again, counsel, whatever she says is subject to cross her representation of another witness. Besides, anything she says, as the court said, as the presiding officer said earlier, is neither conclusive nor binding upon this court. 01:14:25.720 --> 01:14:39.260 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So, we will note the objection. The objection is overruled and you have a continuing objection with respect to this witness's qualification anyway. Attorney, rather Honorable Chell, you may proceed. 01:14:39.600 --> 01:15:32.950 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, Your Honor. Ipakita po natin sa screen ang bahagi ng Section 8 na nakahighlight. Ayan po. Focus po muna tayo dun sa unang bahagi ng Section 8. Kasi medyo mahirap lunokin yung buong provision po na yan at napakahaba. I'll just read it if I may. Quote, If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act 1379, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary, and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. I'd like to emphasis the last part, yung pong nakalagay na that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Ano pong ibig sabihin ito? 01:15:33.710 --> 01:15:51.890 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ang ibig niyang sabihin ay if a public officer is found to have acquired unexplained wealth, In accordance with Republic Act 1379, that is a ground for removal or dismissal. 01:15:52.740 --> 01:16:05.260 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sa madaling salita po, pagka napatunayan nga yung mga kinakailangan ng batas para sa masabi na merong unexplained wealth, ito ay maaaring nang tanggalin ang opisyal na iyon. 01:16:05.400 --> 01:16:06.060 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:16:06.320 --> 01:16:54.620 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Balikan po natin ang Section 8 ng... RA 3019. Babalikan po natin mamaya yung Section 8. Punta po muna tayo sa Section 2 ng RA1379. Ayan po yung nasa screen po ngayon. Nakalagay naman dito, quote, Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary, a such public officer or employee, and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired Palagay ko po yung salitang presumed prima facie ay medyo mahirap intindihin. Sa simpleng salita, maaari po ba ninyong ipaliwanag po yun? 01:16:56.360 --> 01:17:28.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ang ibig sabihin po ng prima facie, actually prima facie is a Latin word. It means, literally in English, on the face of it or on its face. So ang ibig sabihin yan, kapag napakita ng isang opisyal ay nag-acquire ng property that is grossly or manifestly disproportionate to his salary, lawful income, and income from lawfully acquired properties, ito ay ipinapalagay na unlawfully acquired. 01:17:29.660 --> 01:17:35.960 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ilinawin po natin, kapag may ganitong presumption, ibig bang sabihin ay guilty na agad ang opisyal? 01:17:36.160 --> 01:17:58.420 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ay hindi po. Itong presumption na ito ay rebuttable. Ibig sabihin kapag magkapag... Presenta ng ebidensya naman or maipaliwanag satisfactorily ng empleyado or opisyal that he acquired those properties lawfully, mawawala po yung visa ng presumption na yan. 01:17:59.490 --> 01:18:10.550 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you so much, Justice. In other words, Justice, kung hindi tugma ang yaman ng isang opisyal sa kanyang legal na kita, pwedeng itanong na ng batas saan ang galing ang pera? 01:18:10.810 --> 01:18:11.730 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:18:12.780 --> 01:18:22.920 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At siyempre, may obligasyon po ba? I will withdraw and ask another question. At may obligasyon po ba ang pamahalaan na imbestigahan nito? 01:18:23.120 --> 01:18:24.480 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Rejection leading, Your Honor. 01:18:25.200 --> 01:18:30.220 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: I will rephrase. What obligation does the government have in that situation? 01:18:30.920 --> 01:18:38.500 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, Section 8 of RA 1379 mandates that a preliminary inquiry be conducted. 01:18:39.870 --> 01:18:44.080 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Move on na po tayo, Justice, sa pangalawang paksa. 01:18:45.900 --> 01:18:54.140 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Justice, paano naman kung sabihin ng isang opisyal, eh hindi naman sa akin nakapangalan niyang property. Tapos na po ba agad ang 01:18:54.140 --> 01:18:55.840 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: usapan? Objection speculative, Your Honor. 01:18:58.110 --> 01:19:00.510 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Candidate Forum Counsel, again, you know how to get there. 01:19:02.110 --> 01:19:11.590 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Justice Tang, what is the state of the law when it comes to property that is in the name of a person other than the government official concerned? 01:19:12.710 --> 01:19:36.520 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, under Section 8 of Republic Act 3019, the properties in the name of other persons and even the spouse and the children may be considered in determining whether the official has unlawfully accord. Properties. 01:19:36.520 --> 01:19:43.360 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Bakit po? Bakit pati ang ari-arian ng asawa at ng ibang tao ay maaari din tingnan sa ilalim ng batas? 01:19:43.500 --> 01:19:45.720 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Objection already calls for an opinion, Your Honor. 01:19:46.360 --> 01:19:55.980 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: He qualified, he tried to at least qualify the witness as an expert counsel. Again, for as long as it is general and does not apply specifically to this case, we will allow it. Your 01:19:55.980 --> 01:20:02.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Honor, can we just make a clarification? Was she qualified as a legal expert by the court? No, the 01:20:02.580 --> 01:20:26.260 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: court need not declare a witness to be an expert, counsel. Again, as the court said earlier, subject to cross and subject to using the factors in the Frye and Dobert case. You may question this witness's credibility, reliability, and expertise, if any. Again, whatever she says will not be binding nor conclusive upon the court anyway. 01:20:27.010 --> 01:20:27.890 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: We'll submit your 01:20:27.890 --> 01:20:30.610 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: order. Honorable Chal, you may proceed. 01:20:32.580 --> 01:20:33.120 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sir, 01:20:33.260 --> 01:20:34.680 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: can you please repeat the question? 01:20:36.340 --> 01:20:47.140 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Bakit po pagdating po sa bagay ng unexplained wealth ay pati yung mga ari-arian ng asawa o mga nakapangalan sa ibang tao ay maaari din tingnan? 01:20:47.920 --> 01:21:13.290 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, according to the Supreme Court, actually in the case of Republic v. Rabusa and Rabusa v. Republic, this is to prevent concealment. and to obviate the circumstance that a public official is able to evade investigation. 01:21:14.220 --> 01:21:29.220 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, Justice. Ipakita po natin yung Section 8 ng Republic Act 3019 na nakahighlight po yung susunod na slide, please. Next slide, please. 01:21:30.860 --> 01:22:06.520 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Meron pong nakahighlight dyan sa bandang gitna ng Section 8. Pabasahin ko lang po yung bahagi na iyon. Bank deposits in the name of the public official, his spouse or any of their dependents shall likewise be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. Paliwanag na po ninyo yung maaring natingnan ng properties ng asawa o mga dependent. Pero ano po yung nakalagay doon sa dulo? Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. 01:22:07.140 --> 01:22:14.160 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ang ibig sabihin po yan ay kahit may nagbabawal na batas na gawin yun. 01:22:14.960 --> 01:22:18.940 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Move on na po tayo sa pangatlong paksa. 01:22:22.310 --> 01:22:33.440 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Justice, punta naman tayo sa presidente at vicepresidente. Pareho lang po ba ang rules? Sa kanila at sa ordinaryong government employee pagdating sa kanilang kita at financial interests? 01:22:33.560 --> 01:22:34.680 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Objection leading, Your Honor. 01:22:35.660 --> 01:22:48.040 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I respond if Your Honor is pleased? Yes, Honorable Shell. Can I respond? I am simply asking if the rules are the same. But if the court would like, I can rephrase the question to make it non-leading. 01:22:48.400 --> 01:22:53.880 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Kindly rephrase, counsel, but in the interest of time as well. 01:22:54.240 --> 01:23:03.650 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: What are the rules, Justice, insofar as a President and Vice President are concerned as compared to the ordinary government employee. 01:23:04.470 --> 01:23:14.510 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: There are stricter prohibitions on the President and Vice President and even actually the Cabinet Secretaries. They're under secretaries and assistants. 01:23:15.330 --> 01:23:20.950 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Bakit po mas mahigpit ang batas pagdating sa Presidente, Vice Presidente at Cabinet members? 01:23:22.370 --> 01:23:28.860 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, ayon sa Korte Suprema in the case of Civil Liberties Union, versus Executive Secretary. 01:23:30.510 --> 01:23:35.570 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: There is the greater possibility of abuse in their office given their positions. 01:23:36.590 --> 01:23:48.690 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor, please. If I may be allowed to make a manifestation. Your Honor, we understand the position of this court that the testimony of the witness is not binding upon this court. But how about the general public? 01:23:50.910 --> 01:24:06.750 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: This already serves as conditioning of the mind of the public. After all, the public is not educated as to which of these laws that the witness is testifying on is applicable to this case or not. And we just want to make that for the record. 01:24:25.450 --> 01:24:49.280 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: To the facts surrounding this case and this case in particular against the respondent. But the prosecution wishes to use up one of their 15 witnesses and one of their trial dates on the Honorable Justice Tang. And the court allowed it, counsel. So you may proceed, Honorable Jackdo. 01:24:49.710 --> 01:24:55.990 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you, Your Honor. Ipakita po natin ang Article 7, Section 6 ng ating Constitution, please. 01:24:59.110 --> 01:25:21.170 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Meron pong nakasulat po sa bandang dulo nitong provision. First, in the beginning part of this provision, it says, the salaries of the President and Vice President shall be determined by law. And then at the end, it says, they shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the government or any other source. Ano pong ibig sabihin ito? 01:25:22.250 --> 01:25:33.710 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Simply, ang ibig sabihin niyan, hindi pwedeng tumanggap yung presidente o vicepresidente ng sahod mula sa kanilang legitimate na sahod at sa iba pang sources. 01:25:34.430 --> 01:25:43.850 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Eh kami pong mga mambabatas ay wala naman pong ganun na restriction. Bakit po ganitong kahigpit ang konstitusyon natin pagdating sa pangulo at pangalawang pangulo? 01:25:44.090 --> 01:25:59.930 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, it's the same reason I gave in the case of, cited by the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Society versus Executive Secretary. 01:26:00.410 --> 01:26:04.790 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you po. Move on na po tayo sa pang-apat na paksa. 01:26:07.460 --> 01:26:11.680 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Habang po ay presidente o vice-presidente ang isang tawag... 01:26:11.680 --> 01:26:21.620 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: With the permission of the Honorable Jocno, Justice Tang, you interpreted emolument to mean salary? If I heard you correctly? 01:26:21.940 --> 01:26:22.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:26:22.540 --> 01:26:23.220 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Okay. Thank 01:26:23.220 --> 01:26:23.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: you. 01:26:24.460 --> 01:26:26.500 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: If I may proceed, Your Honor. 01:26:26.800 --> 01:26:27.400 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: If 01:26:30.370 --> 01:26:31.490 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: I may proceed, Your Honor, please. 01:26:33.130 --> 01:26:41.890 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Question po, Justice. Habang presidente o vicepresidente, pwede po ba silang basta sumali o makilahok sa negosyo? 01:26:42.130 --> 01:26:42.990 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Hindi po. 01:26:43.810 --> 01:26:47.410 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Saan pong batas nakalagay ang pagbabawal na ito? 01:26:48.270 --> 01:26:52.570 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I think it's Section 13 of Article 7 of the Constitution. 01:26:53.610 --> 01:26:57.530 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ipakita po natin ang Section 13. Yes. 01:26:59.770 --> 01:27:12.070 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Madali lang po naman naiintindihin yung ibang salita dyan. They cannot directly participate in business. Pero ano po kaya ang ibig sabihin ng indirectly na mag-participate na bawal daw? 01:27:13.740 --> 01:27:22.100 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Indirectly simply means hindi silang gumagawa pero iba ang gumagawa but in their name. So ibang tao ang gumagawa para sa kanila. 01:27:23.100 --> 01:27:25.660 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sa ganun sitwasyon, sino pong nakikinabang? 01:27:28.380 --> 01:27:29.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yung official. 01:27:30.390 --> 01:27:35.550 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Dito po ba pumapasok yung salitang beneficial owner? 01:27:36.910 --> 01:27:37.870 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:27:38.610 --> 01:27:45.650 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Siyempre po maraming mga kababayan natin ay hindi po pamilyarang sa salitang beneficial owner. Pakipaliwanag po. 01:27:46.070 --> 01:28:03.050 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ang beneficial owner ay yung tunay na taong nagmamayari ng ari-arian. or sa interest sa korporasyon. Although, based on legal documents, ibang taong nakapangalan doon. 01:28:04.680 --> 01:28:15.260 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you so much, Justice. One more question on this point. So, ibig sabihin, posibleng magkaiba ang pangalan na nasa papel at ang taong tunay na nakikinabang o may financial interest? 01:28:15.620 --> 01:28:16.320 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:28:16.620 --> 01:28:20.140 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Move on na po tayo sa panglimang paksa. 01:28:23.110 --> 01:28:29.430 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Justice, may isa pang sinasabi ang ating konstitusyon na pwede pong ipakita ang Article 7, Section 13. 01:28:31.470 --> 01:28:42.830 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Nakalagay po dyan na bawal ang presidente at vicepresidente magkaroon ng financial interest sa kontrata, franchise, o special privilege mula sa gobyerno. Bakit po ganon? 01:28:43.850 --> 01:28:50.460 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Again, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of a civil 01:28:52.710 --> 01:28:53.670 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Liberties po. 01:28:53.910 --> 01:28:57.070 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Liberties versus executive secretary. 01:28:58.370 --> 01:29:08.790 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Maari po ba kayong magbigay ng halimbawa ng may financial interest sa kontrata ang isang presidente o vice-presidente? 01:29:09.590 --> 01:29:22.310 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, I will cite a case involving a Supreme Court case. The president entering into a contract of lease with a government agency. 01:29:23.820 --> 01:29:40.460 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: So pagka ang Pangulo po ay nagkaroon ng kontrata kahit sabihin natin lease contract lahang po ay maaari po yan na maging paglabag sa having financial interest in a contract with the government. 01:29:40.840 --> 01:29:41.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes sir. 01:29:41.620 --> 01:30:00.100 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Meron pong nakalagay din sa bandang dulo nitong Section 13. They, this is referring to the President, Vice President and Cabinet members, quote, shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. Medyo mabigat pong salita yung conflict. Conflict 01:30:00.100 --> 01:30:01.620 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: of interest. Ano pong ibig sabihin nun? 01:30:02.410 --> 01:30:15.180 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Conflict of interest simply means na yung interest ng opisyal, pribadong interest ng opisyal na yun ay salungat sa interest ng pamahalaan ng kanyang pinagsisilbihan. 01:30:16.360 --> 01:30:38.150 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Salamat po. Move on na po tayo sa pinakahuling topic. Justice, napagusapan na natin yung legal nakita, napagusapan natin yung mga properties, negosyo, financial interest. Bilang public official, saan dapat i-deklara ang assets, liabilities, at net worth ng isang opisyal? 01:30:38.850 --> 01:30:48.070 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Sa kanyang SAL-N po. Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, Financial Interest, at saka Business Interest. 01:30:48.190 --> 01:30:54.090 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Para sa ordinaryong Pilipino po, bakit pa natin pinasa-SAL-N ang mga opisyal ng gobyerno? 01:30:54.740 --> 01:31:12.890 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ito ay nire-require hindi lang ng Constitution at iba pa nating ibang imuiral na batas para malaman kung ang isang opisyal ba ay umaman habang siya ay nasa pwesto at kung papaano niya na-acquire itong yaman na ito. 01:31:13.510 --> 01:31:17.230 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ipakita po natin ang first page ng sale and form please. 01:31:19.040 --> 01:31:27.460 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Para lang po ba itong form na basta-basta lang sinasubmit ng opisyal o may mas mahalagang layunin ito laban sa corruption? 01:31:28.590 --> 01:31:42.430 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, hindi lang ito basta-basta na form po. Ito ay kailangan isumite. And according to the Supreme Court, it must be true, correct, and proper form. 01:31:43.170 --> 01:31:48.370 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: I-close up po natin yung gitnang bahagi po ng page 1 ng SAL-N, please. 01:31:50.550 --> 01:32:01.860 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Kung may asawa po ang public official, ano naman po ang kailangan i-disclose tungkol sa assets, liabilities? Business interests and financial connections ng kanyang asawa ayon sa batas. 01:32:02.240 --> 01:32:38.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ayon sa batas kailangan din isama yung mga ari-arian ng asawa. But let me just qualify sir. Because in the case of Abid Babano versus the Executive Secretary, ang sabi ng Korte Suprema, if the spouses had a complete separation of property, or sa property relations nila before the marriage, then the spouse of that official, the property of the spouse of the official need not be included in that official's SAL-N. 01:32:39.410 --> 01:32:56.030 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: So, ibig sabihin po kapag meron yung tinatawag na prenuptial agreement ang magiging mag-asawa o kaya habang sila yung nag-asawa na ay nag-judicial separation of properties, hindi na po kailangan i-disclose sa SAL-N yung mga assets, liabilities, at net worth ng asawa. 01:32:56.190 --> 01:32:58.390 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Yan po ang turo ng Supreme Court. 01:32:58.630 --> 01:33:04.470 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Ipakita po natin yung notarial acknowledgement po ng SAL-N form, please. 01:33:06.300 --> 01:33:13.160 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Justice, may isang bagay po na gusto ko lang itanong tungkol dito. Ang SAL-N po ba ay pinipirmahan under oath? 01:33:13.700 --> 01:33:15.660 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Opo, it's required under the law. 01:33:16.140 --> 01:33:28.220 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At pakiclose up po yung notarial portion po ng SAL-N. E ano po ang ibig sabihin kapag ang isang dokumento tulad ng SAL-N ay pinirmahan na may pagpapanumpa? 01:33:29.820 --> 01:33:43.700 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well... Once a document is notarized, it becomes a public document. And everything that is stated there is attested to as truthful or true by the one who executes the document. 01:33:44.460 --> 01:33:50.020 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Malapit na po akong matapos. Ipakita po natin ang susunod po na slide. 01:33:52.440 --> 01:34:19.320 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sabi po ng Supreme Court sa isang desisyon, Office of the Ombudsman versus Valencia. And I will just quote that portion. A public officer in the discharge of duties is to use that prudence, caution, and attention which careful persons use in the management of his affairs. First question po, kasi medyo mabigat po itong mga salita. Ano pong ibig sabihin yan? 01:34:20.190 --> 01:34:28.670 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Dapat pag nag-submit ang isang official ng kanyang SAL-N, dapat ito ay tama at wasto? 01:34:30.050 --> 01:35:08.570 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ibig sabihin po, dapat maging maingat at prudente ang mga opisyal na ng ating gobyerno sa pag-fill up po at pag-execute ng SAL-N. Objection leading, Your Honor. I'll just move on if you're honest, please. Kindly move on, Counsel. Thank you. Huling slide na po, pakishow lang sa screen. In the same case, the Supreme Court said, and I quote, By the SAL-N, the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official. It is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. Ano pong masasabi niyo tungkol dyan sa pinasa ko? 01:35:09.740 --> 01:35:27.230 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ang ibig sabihin niyan ay ang SAL-N ay isang notoryadong dokumento and it is also an accountability framework para 01:35:28.990 --> 01:35:50.590 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: accountability framework. Kaya pag nag-execute ang isang official, dapat he should do it by exercising prudence, caution, and attention doon sa details na nakasaad doon sa kanyang statement of assets and liabilities. 01:35:51.170 --> 01:35:57.350 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: I have no more questions. If Your Honor, please, I would just like to thank the good justice for her appearance today. 01:35:57.950 --> 01:36:02.770 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you. Will you cross today, Attorney Mark? Or do we proceed with the interjection of Senator-Judges? 01:36:03.030 --> 01:36:09.750 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor, can we ask if we can be allowed to conduct our cross-examination after lunch? 01:36:10.880 --> 01:36:18.380 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: After lunch. After lunch it shall be. So we shall proceed with the interjections of Senator-Judges. Do we have a list, Anika? 01:36:19.000 --> 01:36:21.960 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Your Honor, may I be allowed to take my seat? Yes, 01:36:21.980 --> 01:36:24.380 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: of course, Attorney Chel. The Honorable Chel. 01:36:26.500 --> 01:36:35.980 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Honorable Chel, forgive me if I confuse you. If I call you attorney sometimes, given that you're a member of Congress. May I get the list, Annika, please? 01:36:42.000 --> 01:36:42.400 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Okay, 01:36:50.770 --> 01:37:00.590 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: this is from Annika, not from me, okay? So if I didn't see your hands, it's not my fault. The Honorable Senator-Judge Rafi Tulfo is recognized for his interjection. 01:37:02.620 --> 01:37:04.780 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You may proceed when you're ready, sir. You have two minutes. 01:37:14.160 --> 01:37:26.660 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Madam Witness, yung bang labas-pasok na pera sa account ng isang public official at hindi po yan na-deklara sa SAL-N, ano po ang tawag doon? 01:37:28.190 --> 01:37:42.770 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, depende po yan kasi the SAL-N is required to be submitted every April 30 of the year. So, ang mag-govern dyan is magkano yung pera mo doon sa bank account mo at as of that time. 01:37:43.210 --> 01:38:05.630 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Halimbawa po umabot sa bilyones yung pasok-labas ng pera from a certain account ng isang public official, umabot na po ng bilyones and yet pag ibalance mo, bilyon pa rin po ang halaga total but it wasn't declared at sabihin na ayan ay pinark lang or ayan ay dumaan lang sa account ko at hindi ko naman talaga pera yan. How would you qualify that? 01:38:06.500 --> 01:38:20.090 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, still kap, basta nasa pangalan niya yung, nasa account name niya. o yung pangalan niya ang nandun sa account, that must still be declared in the SAL-N. 01:38:20.570 --> 01:38:23.350 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: So kung hindi po na-declare sa SAL-N, ano pong tawag doon? 01:38:24.170 --> 01:38:25.570 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, it's an omission. 01:38:26.370 --> 01:38:36.770 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Omission. So would that be considered as unexplained wealth, hidden wealth, questionable wealth? Huwag po kayong gumamit ng RE. Kung gagamit kayo ng RE, pakidefine lang para maintindihan po yung taong bayan. 01:38:36.980 --> 01:39:04.320 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Hindi naman nangangahulugan na pag may omission doon sa SAL-N e kaagad sasabihin na there is unexplained wealth. Kasi according to the Supreme Court nga doon sa kaso ni Carlos versus Executive Secretary, dapat mabigyan ng pagkakataon iyong public officer na ipaliwanag bakit hindi na isama sa kanyang SAL-N iyong mga ibang assets na hindi naka-include doon sa kanyang SAL-N. 01:39:04.610 --> 01:39:11.970 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Pero kung perennial, palagi po nangyayari na lang, year after year, yung ganong klaseng omission na sinasabi niyo, so how would you consider that? 01:39:12.250 --> 01:39:31.630 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, according to the Supreme Court, dapat titignan mo kung yung omission na yan is an honest omission or it was an honest mistake vis-a-vis or compared to an intentional concealment. Pero that will already depend on the attending facts. Depende po yun. 01:39:31.990 --> 01:39:59.870 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Okay. Halimbawa po, Maraming property ang isang public official at sabi nyo nga kanina kapag hindi dideklara that's unexplained wealth. Pero ang sasabihin naman ng isang public official eh yan naman ay sa aking husband at ang husband ko ay kumikita naman dahil siya ay merong magandang profesyon pero hindi na nadeclare ng husband although wala silang prenuptial agreement. How would you consider that? 01:40:03.590 --> 01:40:24.450 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Under RA 1379, binibigyan naman ng pagkakataon yung official na mag-explica o magpaliwanag. Kung katanggap-tanggap naman yung kanyang eksplanasyon na lawfully acquired yung properties na iyon, it will not be considered as unexplained wealth. 01:40:25.070 --> 01:40:33.020 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Lawfully acquired yung property na iyon pero it was not declared doon sa SAL-N. May problema ba doon o wala po, Madam Witness? 01:40:33.480 --> 01:40:51.730 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, according to the Supreme Court, again in the case of Carlos versus Executive Secretary, titignan maigi kung meron bang intentional omission yan or wala. O kaya intentional concealment that amounts to fraud. 01:40:52.740 --> 01:41:08.070 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Okay. You did mention about concealment. So, kailan po masasabi na intentional concealment versus omission yung isang declaration o hindi diniklara o diniklara sa SAL-N na kinita niya ng taong iyon? 01:41:08.700 --> 01:41:31.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: May mga kaso na decided ang Supreme Court. I just can't remember one of those, the title of those cases now na kung repeated. repeated yung omission that can already demonstrate intentional concealment. Kaya pwedeng maging ground, pwedeng, it can constitute dishonesty. 01:41:32.180 --> 01:41:36.020 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Okay. Maraming salamat po, Madam Witness. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank 01:41:36.020 --> 01:41:44.060 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: you, Senator-Judge Rafi Tulfo. Next, first interjection. Court recognizes Senator-Judge Villanueva. You have two minutes, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. 01:41:50.030 --> 01:41:53.980 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Ma'am, good morning. 01:41:57.630 --> 01:42:39.850 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Doon po sa binanggit niyo na pwedeng i-correct ang isang SALN, tingnan po natin yung good faith error versus doon po sa deliberate concealment of wealth. Sa paglalapat po ng prinsipyong ito, Madam Witness, ano pong kongkretong ibidensya ang dapat po nating timbangin? sa inyo pong karanasan para po ma-distinguish talaga itong dalawa na ito and how significant are the officials sa explanation, supporting documents, response to the review and the compliance process ma'am? 01:42:40.500 --> 01:42:56.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, katulad ng nabanggit ko kanina sir, kapag repeated yan like for five consecutive years Hindi na include yung property niyan. This is a badge na there is an attempt at concealment. 01:42:59.020 --> 01:43:00.640 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Pag-repeated. Yes. 01:43:00.660 --> 01:43:00.880 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: And 01:43:00.880 --> 01:43:09.510 Sen. Joel Villanueva: when you say repeated, ma'am, at least ang repeated, dalawa lang ho yan eh. Pero kung lima, tatlong repeated na ho yan. 01:43:12.280 --> 01:43:27.890 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Tama po ba, ma'am? Tama po. And what should be provided to determine po whether or not the correction was made in good faith? or whether the original omission involved deliberate concealment. 01:43:28.170 --> 01:43:59.660 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, mayroong isang Supreme Court case actually na in 2002 or 2002 and 2003 na i-declare nung official yung kanya doon sa yung asset na yun sa SAL-N niya but those assets were excluded or not included in his subsequent SAL-Ns. So he was questioned but The Supreme Court said that the Supreme Court found that honest mistake lang yung kanyang nagawa. 01:43:59.860 --> 01:44:38.500 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Ma'am, paano niyo po ihiwalay yung dati na niyang pag-aari? For instance, napundar niya habang nasa pwesto po siya. Paano niyo isasaalang-alang kung kailan at... At magkano binili ang mga ito, ang mga utang at ang pagbabago sa halagang nakasaad po sa kanyang sale. Halimbawa po ma'am, kunyari nagbenta po siya ng lupa at ginamit niya yung parehong salapi para bumili ng bahay. How can the court avoid counting the same funds twice when an asset is sold and the proceeds are reinvested? 01:44:39.380 --> 01:44:46.960 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Dapat hindi na niya po yung i-include yung naibenta niya, kundi just the proceeds ng kanyang pagbebenta. 01:44:48.250 --> 01:45:28.230 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Yung proceeds lang po? Yes. Ma'am, isa pang katanungan. Pinapayagan po ng rules ang pag-grupo ng ilang personal properties. Pero sapat na po bang kasama ang cash sa total ng... Other assets. Madalas ito kasi parang nai-encounter. Kung hindi po malinaw kung magkano ang cash at kung ano ang iba pang ari-arian, kailan po sapat, Madam Witness, ang pag-grupo at kailan naman po kailangan ng hiwalay na detalye? 01:45:30.750 --> 01:45:43.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: RA 6713, yung cash on hand and cash in bank, they must be specifically declared in the SALN. Hindi pwede i-lump yun sa ibang other personal properties. 01:45:44.360 --> 01:45:54.560 Sen. Joel Villanueva: So would you say, ma'am, last na po, Mr. Presiding Officer, would you say that this is not a usual practice? Unusual po na inilalump yung cash dun sa other assets? 01:45:56.940 --> 01:46:06.240 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I will not consider it unusual, but it is against the provision of Section 8 of RA 6713. And 01:46:06.240 --> 01:46:12.600 Sen. Joel Villanueva: therefore, if you do that, you are violating the law itself. That's your... Yes 01:46:12.600 --> 01:46:45.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir, pero... Again, doon kasi po sa kaso ni Carlos versus Executive Secretary, meron po tayong tinatawag ng Review and Compliance Procedure under Section 10 of 6713 na binibigyan ng pagkakataon actually yung public official para ayusin kung merong it was not timely filed, it is not in proper form, at saka I just forgot, yung isa pang tatlo po yung kailangan na doon. 01:46:46.180 --> 01:46:50.400 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Maraming salamat po, Madam Justice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank 01:46:50.660 --> 01:46:58.340 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: you, Senator Judge Villanueva. Our Senate President, Senator Wayne Gachalian is recognized for his interjections. You have two minutes, sir. 01:46:58.520 --> 01:46:59.000 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Good 01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:00.820 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: morning, Madam Justice. 01:47:04.770 --> 01:47:05.850 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Unexplained wealth po. 01:47:07.710 --> 01:47:27.590 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Sa aking palagay, Hindi naman po yan linalagay sa SAL-N. Typically, hindi nila dinideclare yan kasi unexplained wealth. So, in your opinion, anong mga dokumento ang dapat tignan para po makita at ma-detect po itong unexplained wealth? 01:47:30.140 --> 01:48:02.840 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Katulad ng kaso sa Heirs of Ligot versus Sandiganbayan, pati na rin yung sa Rabusa versus Republics. Tinitignan din yung mga assets ng asawa tsaka ng mga anak and even other persons for as long as, according to the case of Ligot versus Sandiganbayan, the acquisition is traceable to the public official. 01:48:04.870 --> 01:48:10.190 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Can you cite an example? Paano po matitrace to a public official? 01:48:11.570 --> 01:48:44.570 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ang determinant po dyan, ang nagdedetermine yan according to the Supreme Court is, ito bang mga taong ito, yung asawa-anak o yung ibang tao, were they financially capable to lawfully acquire those assets? Kung wala silang kapasidad na bilhin yun in their independent capacity, then that will be traceable yung acquisition na yun doon sa public official. Then that asset will be attributed as asset of the public official. 01:48:44.950 --> 01:49:01.090 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Based on your experience, Madam Justice, paano po tinatago ang unexplained wealth? Based on your experience, ano po yung mga nakikita niyong ways para itagoy ng unexplained wealth? 01:49:01.470 --> 01:49:15.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, yung public official will employ dummies or nominees or even proxies po. Or the assets are registered in the name of or names of other people. 01:49:16.750 --> 01:49:20.950 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: How about po yung pag-cash naman po? We're talking about assets. 01:49:22.830 --> 01:49:29.650 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Pag cash naman, for example, ayaw niya bumili ng assets but cash, paano pa-detect yung mga ganitong unexplained wealth? 01:49:31.380 --> 01:49:52.010 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, kung nasa possession niya yung without depositing it in a bank, mahirap po yun, mahirap yun makita. But if these are deposits in banks and registered in the names of other persons but the ownership 01:50:02.110 --> 01:50:02.890 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: How 01:50:02.890 --> 01:50:15.210 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: about yung time horizon, Madam Justice? Kailangan gaano kahaba ba yung time horizon na dapat tignan in the accumulation of unexplained wealth? 01:50:16.890 --> 01:50:24.440 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Wala namang tinitignan na period po yan. Depende na po yun sa investigation that will be conducted. 01:50:28.280 --> 01:50:41.180 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: How about yung unexplained wealth? Pag let's say meron nga nakitang unexplained wealth, sino po ang dapat mag-prove nitong unexplained wealth? 01:50:42.400 --> 01:51:17.710 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, katulad ng nasabi ko po kanina, there are three requisites na sinabi ng Supreme Court. para mag-arise itong prima facie presumption of unexplained wealth. Sinabi ng Supreme Court sa kaso ni Heirs of Ligot v. Sandiganbayan, number one, that the respondent is a public officer. Number two, that during his incumbency, he has acquired property that is manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income. 01:51:23.880 --> 01:51:30.480 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Assuming yung respondent, dapat ba i-prove niya na this is not unexplained wealth? 01:51:31.980 --> 01:51:53.090 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes po. Because this time, because of this prima facie presumption na unlawfully acquired yung property, the burden of proof now shifts to the official to show that he has legitimately acquired those properties alleged to have. alleged to be unlawfully acquired. 01:51:53.670 --> 01:52:05.010 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Assuming those are not declared in the SALN, paano niya i-defend o paano niya i-justify yung wealth accumulation? 01:52:07.370 --> 01:52:25.510 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, if he can present evidence that he was able to acquire these assets, Lawfully, like from lawful gratuitous gifts 01:52:27.210 --> 01:52:31.980 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: or donate gifts. Pwede pa rin yun po. 01:52:32.180 --> 01:52:36.680 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Even in the absence of a declaration in the SAL-N, hindi niya din-declare. 01:52:39.510 --> 01:52:50.410 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Hindi niya din-declare sa SAL-N niya pero yun ang ginamit niyang defense for his Unexplained wealth. Is that acceptable? Can that be accepted? 01:52:51.580 --> 01:52:52.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Hindi po. 01:52:52.700 --> 01:52:56.620 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: So kailangan ho magtugma sa SAL-N and also the explanation? 01:52:57.040 --> 01:52:58.040 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. In 01:52:58.040 --> 01:52:58.580 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: other words? 01:52:58.860 --> 01:52:59.460 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 01:52:59.560 --> 01:53:04.760 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: And pag hindi ho nagtugma, is that grounds for removal or removal from office? 01:53:05.900 --> 01:53:09.760 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, according to Section 8 01:53:11.360 --> 01:53:13.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: of RA No. 3019, 01:53:15.320 --> 01:53:32.390 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Kapag napatunayan nga na may unexplained wealth yung tao, yung opisyal, ayon sa pamantayan ng RA 1379, that will serve as a ground for removal or dismissal. 01:53:46.160 --> 01:54:19.440 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: This will be quick, Mr. Presiding Officer. Madam Witness, Retired Justice, Paano po pag yung isang opisyal nag-deposit ng 20, 30, o 50 million sa account niya, pero after a few days winidraw niya naman ho? Is that considered ill-gotten or unexplained? Eh winidraw niya naman ho kaagad. Kailangan ba siyang tanungin? Oy, bakit may pera kang ganun? Eh, binidraw niya naman agad. Di naman tumagal sa account. At wala lang. Parang naglaho, parang bula. How's that? 01:54:21.640 --> 01:54:37.770 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, siguro ambla nang mag-ano dyan po. Kasi may mga requirements dyan sa Anti-Money Laundering Act regarding itong mga ganitong mga deposits na ito. 01:54:38.310 --> 01:55:06.920 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Okay. Paano ko sabihin mo niya, Madam Witness? Hindi naman sa akin yan eh. Hinawakan ko lang para sa iba. For example, sabihin niya sa asawa niya or sa kamag-anak niya, dumaan lang doon, pinahawak lang sa kanya. Pero wala naman, pag three days natin, wala naman talaga, hindi natin makikita doon. Paano naman daw huyo? Kailangan pa ba siyang imbestigahan? Eh sandali lang, three days o one week lang huyong pera doon sa account niya. 01:55:07.240 --> 01:55:11.780 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, I will be answering po the question based on 01:55:14.200 --> 01:55:32.060 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: 1379. Kung dapat yun dineklara niya sa SAL-N niya at the time na nasa kanya pa. Kung baga, when he filed his SAL-N na nanood pa sa kanyang pangalan yung deposito na yun, ay dapat in-include niya yun sa kanyang assets. 01:55:33.080 --> 01:55:51.530 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: So, pero kung within that year, for example, 2026, for example, last month, Pero after few days, winidraw niya kaagad. Winidraw ng opisyal. And wala nang trace. So, ka-questionin pa ba siya? Kailangan pa ba siyang questionin? 01:55:52.510 --> 01:56:09.690 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, that will be a different matter. It will not be included in his salin kasi kung at the time he's required to file his salin, wala na yun sa deposito niya sa bangko. But that can be the subject probably of an inquiry by the Anti-Money Laundering Council. 01:56:11.290 --> 01:56:13.650 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Thank you Madam Witness. Thank you Presiding Officer. 01:56:19.710 --> 01:56:23.830 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The Chair will have- Senator Judge Sotto is recognized. 01:56:25.210 --> 01:56:25.770 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You 01:56:25.770 --> 01:56:27.510 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: may proceed sir. You have two minutes when you're ready. 01:56:28.910 --> 01:56:31.090 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Thank you Mr. Presiding Officer. 01:56:32.690 --> 01:56:54.030 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Out of curiosity, I did not hear it well earlier. There was a mention of your ruling. Sandigan Bayan ruling that was overturned by the Supreme Court. Arroyo, something as mentioned. Ano po yung ruling nyo na overturned? 01:56:55.670 --> 01:57:01.490 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Your Honor, hindi po akong, I was not part of the division that rendered that decision. 01:57:01.890 --> 01:57:02.450 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: It 01:57:02.450 --> 01:57:03.370 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: was another decision. 01:57:06.900 --> 01:57:07.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I 01:57:07.720 --> 01:57:08.660 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: had no 01:57:08.660 --> 01:58:41.370 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: participation in the denial of the demurrer to evidence. Probably, may I continue? Probably, yung sinasabi kanina ng counsel, it has something to do with one of my speeches that I delivered before the UP College of Law. At saka dito sa Dalawang events po yun na sabi ko, perhaps there is a need to re-examine yung ruling na ito kasi nga po, sa tingin ko lang, prosecuting plunder has become more difficult for the prosecution because in that case, nire-require kasi po ng Supreme Court yung allegation of a mastermind. Kaya sabi ko, maybe it's time that Congress re-examine this law para to help in the prosecution of these cases. For as long as the allegation of conspiracy is there, is alleged there in the information, there may be no need anymore to identify the main plunderer in the case or in a case for plunder. Yun lang po ang sinabi ko. Wala na po akong sinabi. But I was not part of the division that rendered the resolution denying the demurrer to evidence of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 01:58:55.650 --> 01:58:59.190 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Mabanggit ko lang din para mapaalala natin pagdating doon sa mga SAL-N. 01:59:01.030 --> 02:00:01.000 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Sapagkat yung SAL-N, hindi alam ng karamihan, lalo na siguro ng mga kababayan natin, na kaming mga public officials ay mayroong pinirmahan doon sa SAL-N. Nandoon sa last paragraph ng bago ka pumirma na nag-aattest ka na totoo lahat yung sinasabi mo. Doon sa sale na iyon, nakalagay po doon na we are authorizing, oh no, the ombudsman is authorized. Waiver po yung pinirma namin ng ombudsman may look into or may authorize any agency to inspect or to investigate us. Pati mga bank accounts at lahat yan. Kaya nga po meron ganon. Kaya yung nababanggit kanina ni Senator Erwin na kung sabihin niya, eh hindi akin yung pera eh. Hindi naman akin, pinakahawa ka lang, nilagay lang sa akin. Ngayon, dapat mag-submit ka ng SAL-IN. Baka ilagay mo yun o hindi? 02:00:01.850 --> 02:00:05.330 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Kung nasa possession mo pa rin po yung pera, you have to declare it. 02:00:05.450 --> 02:00:08.690 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Nung nagpa-file ka ng SAL-N? Yes, sir. Kahit hindi iyo yun? 02:00:08.730 --> 02:00:09.290 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:00:09.370 --> 02:00:12.950 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Tama. Alright. Thank you. Senator-Judge 02:00:12.950 --> 02:00:18.830 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Lacson for his first round and then Senator-Judge Rafi Tulfo for his second. 02:00:20.430 --> 02:00:20.950 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You may 02:00:20.950 --> 02:00:21.170 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: proceed, 02:00:21.330 --> 02:00:22.350 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge Lacson. 02:00:22.350 --> 02:00:23.090 Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson: Good morning po, Justice. 02:00:23.470 --> 02:00:24.370 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Good morning, sir. Sa 02:00:24.370 --> 02:00:45.660 Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson: akin lang po, bakit po ba limitado lamang sa Pangulo? At sa pangalawang pangulo, ang paglahok sa anumang uri ng negosyo. Bakit hindi po ito nag-a-apply indirectly or indirectly ang sinasabi? At hindi ito nag-a-apply sa gobernador, sa mayor, mga senador, at congressmen. 02:00:47.190 --> 02:01:06.030 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Katulad sir po na nabanggit ko kanina dun sa Supreme Court case, nakalimutan ko na naman yung title, na given the fact that the president and vice president are the two highest officials of the land, ay sinasabi dun, there is the greater possibility of abuse in their office. 02:01:08.050 --> 02:01:15.150 Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson: Hindi po ba mag-a-apply din sa gobernador? At least within his area of jurisdiction? 02:01:16.380 --> 02:01:25.700 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, mayroon sa Republic Act 6713 yung mga prohibitions din po regarding local government officials and the other officials in government. 02:01:26.390 --> 02:02:23.620 Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson: Pero qualified po yung talagang Pangulo at Pangalawang Pangulo. Ano mang uri ng negosyo, directly or indirectly, hindi talaga sila, maski nga yung kanilang mga spouses, eh hindi talaga pwede lumahok. Absolute po eh. Samantal, yung tanong ko po, bakit hindi nag-apply o nag-a-apply sa ibang opisyalis o executive opisyalis ng gobyerno na similarly situated, although Alam ko po na yung pangulo at saka pangalawang pangulo, malawak buong Pilipinas. Pero hindi po ba in a similar vein, same vein, kung sa loob ng isang probinsya, ang pinaka-chief executive naman doon ay gobernador. At sa isang bayan o isang siyudad, ang chief executive doon ay yung mayor. Ano lang po ito, hindi naman po ito out, sabi nga ni Senate President Sotto. Out of curiosity, bakit po ganun na application? 02:02:25.040 --> 02:02:42.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Kasi nga, they have greater powers, sabi ng Supreme Court, kaya yung more stringent ang prohibition sa kanila. And because of the powers that they wield, there is the greater possibility of abuse in their office. 02:02:42.700 --> 02:02:43.940 Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson: Maraming salamat po. Thank you, Mr. 02:02:43.960 --> 02:02:44.220 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: President. 02:02:44.460 --> 02:02:46.100 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge, Rafi is recognized. 02:02:57.470 --> 02:03:02.430 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Salampung katalungan ko, Madam. Witness, and Mr. Presiding Officer. 02:03:05.010 --> 02:03:07.110 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Sa Sandigan, 12 years po kayo, no? 02:03:07.230 --> 02:03:07.750 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes. 02:03:08.110 --> 02:03:42.470 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Okay. Doon sa 12 years na experience, I'm sure meron kayo nahawakan ng mga kaso na kung saan nasampa ng kaso ang isang government officials dahil yung kanyang income hindi bumabanga doon sa kanyang salin o doon sa mga pera niya sa bangko. So, meaning merong undeclared or unquestionable wealth or hidden wealth, etc. Ano nangyari dun sa mga kasong iyon? Ano nangyari dun sa mga government official na iyon na dumaan sa paglilitis ninyo? 02:03:43.010 --> 02:04:02.380 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: As far as I can recall, in one case, I will not mention the name of the government official involved. We actually forfeited or declared forfeited yung mga assets na prove. na they were unlawfully or illegally acquired. 02:04:02.820 --> 02:04:07.020 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Ano nangyayari naman dun sa tao? Siya ba ay nasibak sa servisyo? Nakulong? 02:04:07.240 --> 02:04:09.060 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: At that time, wala na po siya 02:04:09.060 --> 02:04:09.180 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: sa 02:04:09.180 --> 02:04:09.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: pwesto. 02:04:10.440 --> 02:04:19.180 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Pero wala pa kinahawakan kung saan yung isang government official tulad ng nabanggit kanina na senaryo na siya ay nasibak sa servisyo o nakulong? 02:04:19.890 --> 02:04:28.670 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Wala pa po. Unfortunately, yung isa na kaso, namatay yung government official. 02:04:29.400 --> 02:04:31.200 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Pero kung hindi siya namatay, anong sana nangyari? 02:04:32.670 --> 02:04:35.910 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I will not speculate, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. 02:04:36.010 --> 02:04:36.510 Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo: Thank 02:04:36.510 --> 02:04:45.780 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: you, Senator Judge Rafi. Senator Judge Kiko Pangilinan, you may proceed, sir, with your interjection. Thank you. Actually, 02:04:45.960 --> 02:04:49.520 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: isang question lang. Siguro may isang follow-up kung kailangan. 02:04:51.640 --> 02:05:05.440 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: Marami kasi ang ating mga kababayan nakikinig, nanonood. Ngayong ill-gotten wealth ang pinag-uusapan. Yung ill-gotten wealth ba kinakailangan pondo ng gobyerno? 02:05:06.070 --> 02:05:26.520 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Not necessarily po kasi if you look at the plunder law, there are five overt or criminal acts kung tawagin na if committed through a series or combination at ang na-amass or na-acquire or na-amass na wealth is at the threshold, the minimum threshold of 50 million pesos can still constitute plunder. 02:05:27.720 --> 02:05:33.600 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: And the 50 million need not be public funds? 02:05:33.960 --> 02:05:47.620 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No sir, because I think it's paragraph B about bribery. Bribery, the money generally does not come from government but from other persons. 02:05:48.360 --> 02:05:51.660 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: Okay. Yun lang. Maraming salamat Justice. 02:05:52.140 --> 02:05:52.500 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Thank you. 02:05:52.500 --> 02:06:15.080 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Before we break for lunch. Just some interjections from the chair. Ma'am, Justice Tang, you said because of the provision on prima facie in 1379, Section 2, the burden of proof shifts? I think you meant the burden of evidence shifts. 02:06:15.100 --> 02:06:19.280 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: It's burden of proof, sir, according to the Supreme Court. 02:06:19.770 --> 02:06:32.290 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: In Ligot? I didn't see that in Ligot, ma'am. In Ligot, it didn't say that exactly. So the burden, it's your position that the burden of proof and not the burden of evidence shifts? 02:06:32.430 --> 02:06:39.190 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. I read that in one case, but I just don't remember the Supreme Court case now. 02:06:39.330 --> 02:06:43.550 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: And the basis, if at all, would be Section 2 of 1379? 02:06:44.330 --> 02:06:44.950 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:06:45.930 --> 02:07:04.600 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: I will respect your opinion, ma'am. I may disagree, but I will respect your opinion. Next. You said upon being asked kung ano yung asset niya at the time of filing. Isn't it asset nung official as of December 31, not at the time of filing? Because filing is on April 30, ma'am. 02:07:05.160 --> 02:07:06.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. I stand correct. 02:07:06.820 --> 02:07:27.060 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So, as of December 31. Yes, sir. In theory, ma'am, kung may pumasok na pera at lumabas ng October, pumasok at lumabas ng November, pero pagdating ng December 31, wala yun sa account mo. Obligado ka bang i-declare po yun, in your opinion, sa iyong April 30 filing ng SALN? 02:07:27.180 --> 02:07:34.420 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No more, sir, kasi wala na yung asset na yun or pondo at as of December 31 of that year. 02:07:34.680 --> 02:07:38.640 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: At doon na po papasok yung binanggit niyong AMLAC? Yes, 02:07:38.800 --> 02:07:38.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 02:07:39.260 --> 02:07:53.650 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Yes, ma'am. A few more questions, ma'am. You cited Section 6, rather, Article 7 from any source. I asked earlier, you only meant emolument. You didn't meant salary. You didn't meant any other income. 02:07:54.090 --> 02:07:57.430 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Not salary, sir. It's income. 02:07:58.990 --> 02:08:00.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Kita. So, 02:08:00.820 --> 02:08:03.300 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: emolument, you mean, is not limited to salary? 02:08:04.900 --> 02:08:08.200 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Shall not receive any emolument. That is salary, sir. 02:08:08.480 --> 02:08:09.540 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So, salary, ma'am? 02:08:09.660 --> 02:08:10.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 02:08:10.440 --> 02:08:22.560 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So, let's say may shares of stock. Yung tumakbong presidente, nanalo. Nag-declare ng dividendo yung kumpanya. That's not salary. Is that legal or illegal in your opinion? 02:08:23.410 --> 02:08:25.270 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, it's not. It's not illegal. 02:08:25.850 --> 02:08:28.990 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So, he or she can take it? Pwede yan? 02:08:29.250 --> 02:08:29.950 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:08:30.170 --> 02:08:31.470 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Kasi hindi siya salary. 02:08:32.980 --> 02:09:16.440 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Next, ma'am. Article 7, Section 13 makes mention of the word, participate in any business. My question is, ba't hindi sinabi sa Saligang Batas, have an interest in any business? Bakit participate? Kasi nakalagay sa bandang huling ng provision ng Section 13, conflict of interest. Ito hindi sinasabing conflict of interest. Binanggit lang yung conflict of interest in relation to a contract with government or a financial interest with any license or franchise issued by government. Pero nilagay po sa business, participate in business. Ano po ibig sabihin? Hindi siya pwedeng magmay-ari ng negosyo o hindi siya pwedeng makilahok sa negosyong pag-ari niya. Meaning actively run it. 02:09:18.830 --> 02:09:22.910 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Your Honor, ang participate naman nakalagay dyan directly or indirectly. 02:09:25.230 --> 02:09:25.870 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Meaning? 02:09:26.190 --> 02:09:39.280 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Meaning, whether ownership in a corporation or participating either as a director or as an officer of the corporation, that is prohibited. 02:09:39.880 --> 02:10:01.510 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Ma'am, it is in line, directly or indirectly is in line with the practice of any other profession, participate in any business. Hindi ba parang ibig sabihin ito? Kapag ka pangulo kay kalawang pangulo, huwag mong pagkaabalahan ano pang ibang bagay. Ito ang pangunahin mong trabaho. Ito lang ang dapat mong tutukan. Yes, sir. Does it also include not owning a business? 02:10:02.390 --> 02:10:03.150 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:10:03.780 --> 02:10:14.730 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So, it is your position that a president and or vice president should divest from any businesses that they may have after they take their oath? 02:10:15.190 --> 02:10:25.550 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. In fact, there is... Under the law, there is a need to divest upon assumption of office immediately and within 30 days. 02:10:27.160 --> 02:10:28.540 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: What law would that be, ma'am? 02:10:29.080 --> 02:10:31.780 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I think it's 6713, sir. 02:10:32.420 --> 02:10:34.300 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: It's in the Code of Ethical Standards? 02:10:34.560 --> 02:10:34.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes. 02:10:35.370 --> 02:10:43.250 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: I see that being done by most secretaries whenever they're appointed, whenever they have a business that's related to the department they will be heading, 02:10:43.470 --> 02:10:44.150 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: as 02:10:44.150 --> 02:10:54.690 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: we have seen in the past. So it is your position that if you are President and Vice President, you have to divest from any and all businesses. Mas kinasari-sari store pa yan? 02:10:54.690 --> 02:10:55.650 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:10:55.650 --> 02:10:56.810 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: That is your position, ma'am? 02:10:56.910 --> 02:10:57.410 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:10:57.470 --> 02:11:07.550 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: And finally, ma'am, on SAL-N, pare-pareho lang po naman ng SAL-N ng Presidente, Vice, at ng bawat opisyal ng pamahalaan, di po ba? 02:11:08.280 --> 02:11:12.520 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Because there is a prescribed form by the Civil Service Commission. 02:11:13.080 --> 02:11:26.580 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Then why does the prescribed form mention business interest if it's prohibited from a president and vice president? It's the same form they fill up, ma'am. Why does it still include a blank for business interest if it's prohibited? 02:11:28.200 --> 02:11:35.060 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, it's a pro-form. It's a form that is prepared by the Civil Service Commission. 02:11:37.550 --> 02:11:46.320 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: All that the public, the president or vice president as the case may be, will do is to state they're not applicable, sir. 02:11:46.600 --> 02:12:00.800 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Or umaasaan sa civil service na malay mo, madulas, magkamali, umamin. Meaning, there are only two officials, ma'am, president and vice president. I'm sure they can come up with a form for them specially. Wouldn't you think so? If at all for the future, if not now? 02:12:01.520 --> 02:12:02.240 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:12:02.940 --> 02:12:05.620 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Perhaps, right? Because it's there. The blank is there to be filled up. 02:12:06.780 --> 02:12:07.320 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:12:07.660 --> 02:12:10.100 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: So ang ilalagay dapat na nun, ma'am, not applicable? 02:12:10.620 --> 02:12:11.240 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:12:11.400 --> 02:12:13.300 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: If you're president and vice president? 02:12:13.560 --> 02:12:14.040 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 02:12:14.540 --> 02:12:22.770 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: That would be all, Madam Justice. Senator-Judge Pia, Senator-Judge J.V. Ejercito, and then we break for lunch? 02:12:22.770 --> 02:12:26.290 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: I thought there were no other senator-judges, that's why I already interjected. 02:12:26.290 --> 02:12:27.270 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Yes, Senator-Judge Pia. 02:12:27.270 --> 02:12:28.430 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: No, actually, mine 02:12:28.430 --> 02:12:31.090 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: is just a follow-up to his Honor's question. 02:12:32.750 --> 02:13:25.350 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Good afternoon, Justice. Good afternoon. Just a clarification on your response to the presiding officer. His earlier question was about the need to, if in your opinion, the president or vice president can hold on to stocks and receive dividends. And your answer was yes, they can receive dividends. You answered that earlier, hindi ba? Mr. Presiding Officer, can you confirm? She answered yes. Can I say something? Sure. I'll complete my question because precisely I want it clarified. And then in his succeeding question where we talked about divesting, sabi niyo they have to divest. So what would now be the difference between your first answer and your second answer? Because holding of stocks is also a form of ownership. 02:13:26.140 --> 02:13:43.100 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, regarding the receipt of dividends, if those dividends already accrued before assumption of office, then that becomes divested right of the stockholder. There 02:13:43.100 --> 02:13:43.940 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: is 02:13:43.940 --> 02:13:45.820 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: no legal prohibition to that. 02:13:46.140 --> 02:14:04.930 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: So ma'am, are you now clarifying your answer that If it was accrued prior to the assumption of office, then they may receive it, but upon assumption of office, they should be divesting of all kinds of investment, all stock ownerships. 02:14:05.070 --> 02:14:05.770 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, ma'am. 02:14:06.050 --> 02:14:21.810 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: So it doesn't matter if it is publicly listed, that you have no say, that you have shares that are just sitting there. Wala nang pinagkaiba yun sa closed corporations with limited stockholders. There's no difference in your opinion. 02:14:22.130 --> 02:14:22.690 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, ma'am. 02:14:22.710 --> 02:14:31.050 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: So that's very different from my understanding of the earlier response that you gave. But thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, 02:14:31.070 --> 02:14:31.210 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: ma 02:14:31.210 --> 02:14:31.310 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: 'am. 02:14:31.810 --> 02:14:35.050 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge JV is recognized. Then we pause for lunch. 02:14:36.010 --> 02:14:38.490 Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" G. Ejercito: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Justice. 02:14:39.660 --> 02:14:40.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Good morning, sir. 02:14:40.580 --> 02:14:55.920 Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" G. Ejercito: Justice, is it correct to say that the unexplained wealth is automatically illegally accumulated wealth or it does not follow? Ibig mo ba sabihin na ito ay, kung hindi na ipaliwanag ka agad, ay ito ay illegal ka agad o galing nakaw? 02:14:56.660 --> 02:15:15.040 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, according to Republic Act 1379, sir, may opportunity yung official to explain kung merong manifest disproportionality from his lawful income at sa kanyang pagmamayari, yung kanyang yaman. 02:15:16.720 --> 02:15:39.580 Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" G. Ejercito: Pangano po Justice, in your judicial experience, have you encountered instances when unexplained wealth was sufficiently explained by the public official? So sa inyo pong experience, may mga kaso ko ba na mukhang unexplained wealth sa umpisa pero Kalaunan ay ito'y napatunayan na hindi na mapalawag galing sa illegal o nakao. 02:15:41.190 --> 02:15:43.010 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. Wala po. 02:15:46.390 --> 02:15:59.340 Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" G. Ejercito: Just a few points, Mr. President. Is it important for unexplained wealth to be acquired during the incumbency? So yung questionable yaman o ari-arian na nakuha mismo ay habang dapat nananungkulan ang public official? 02:15:59.660 --> 02:16:29.930 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. According to the Supreme Court, again, in the case of heirs of Ligot versus Sandiganbayan kasi tatlo ang requisites niyan before this presumption may apply. Dapat siya ay public officer and then naka-accumulate siya ng vast wealth. During his incumbency. And third, he cannot satisfactorily explain kung paano niya nakuha yung yaman na yun. Lawfully. 02:16:30.740 --> 02:16:47.040 Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" G. Ejercito: Last point, Sir President. What if the unexplained wealth is not acquired during the incumbency of the public official but before he assumed office? Kumbaga kung na-acquired niyo ito bago siya nag-anongkulan o nag-assume? As an official. 02:16:47.420 --> 02:17:09.120 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: If he acquired those money, that money unlawfully as a private individual, ibang usapan na po yun. He cannot be sued because of his incumbency dyan. 02:17:10.330 --> 02:17:11.810 Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" G. Ejercito: Thank you, Sir. Thank 02:17:12.580 --> 02:17:31.330 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: you. With the permission of Senator Judge Riza, can we do her interjections after lunch and or after the cross of Attorney Mark? The time is 12.11. We shall resume at 12.45. 02:17:33.900 --> 02:17:35.860 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We shall 02:17:37.300 --> 02:17:38.360 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: resume at 1 o'clock. 02:17:46.320 --> 02:17:50.600 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Trial is suspended. We are on recess until 1pm. Thank you. 03:07:57.140 --> 03:08:06.500 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Kindly situate Justice Cabotaje Tang at the witness stand. Kindly assist her, please. 03:08:24.390 --> 03:08:26.810 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Ma'am, nakakain po kayo, Justice Tang? 03:08:27.780 --> 03:08:28.700 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, Your Honor. 03:08:29.060 --> 03:08:44.310 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You shall continue with your testimony under the same oath. Attorney Mark, do you want to do your cross first or do you want to allow... Senator Riza, for her interjection. 03:08:44.880 --> 03:08:46.220 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: We can allow her first. 03:08:46.600 --> 03:08:49.860 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You're both giving way, so I will listen to her. She says 03:08:49.860 --> 03:08:51.000 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: kayo... 03:08:52.830 --> 03:08:54.410 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge Risa, you want to proceed? 03:08:56.550 --> 03:08:58.610 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator Judge Riza, you want to proceed? 03:08:58.610 --> 03:08:59.430 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Yes. 03:08:59.430 --> 03:09:04.090 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You may proceed with your interjection before we proceed with the cross of the respondent. 03:09:08.920 --> 03:09:10.400 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer. 03:09:12.900 --> 03:09:26.540 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Salamat sa defense, although I was willing to listen to their crosswords. In any case po, Mr. Presiding Officer, magandang hapon po, Justice. Good afternoon, ma'am. Good afternoon po. Ilang mga tanong na lamang po. 03:09:28.830 --> 03:09:35.830 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: So nabanggit niyo po kanina na may prima facie presumption sa mga kaso ng unexplained wealth. 03:09:37.460 --> 03:09:42.700 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Kailan po pumapasok o kailan nagkikick in yung ganyang presumption? 03:09:45.000 --> 03:10:12.260 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Katulad po nang nabanggit ko kanina, according to the Supreme Court, in the case of heirs of Ligot versus Sandigan Bayan, tatlo po ang requisites niyan bago mag-apply yung presumption. Number one, the respondent is a public officer. Number two, he acquired properties during his incumbency that are gross. Number three, these properties are grossly disproportionate to his salary, 03:10:13.780 --> 03:10:18.980 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: lawful income, or sources from other legitimately acquired property. 03:10:20.870 --> 03:10:25.130 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: So, bakit po gumawa ng ganyang presumption yung batas? 03:10:25.450 --> 03:10:26.110 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: To 03:10:29.600 --> 03:10:35.830 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: make it easier, I believe, for the government to go after errant public officials. 03:10:37.980 --> 03:10:58.260 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: And yet, sabi niyo rin po kanina na historically in the preceding years, In fact, naging mas mahirap para sa prosecution ang mag-prosecute ng mga kaso ng plunder. At sabi niyo pa po kanina, baka nga dapat i-review ng Kongreso ang mga kaukulang batas. 03:10:58.860 --> 03:11:00.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: That's my personal opinion, ma'am. 03:11:00.900 --> 03:11:24.000 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Opo. Alright. Salamat po. Sabi niyo rin po kanina, magkakaiba yung hidden wealth, ill-gotten wealth, at saka unexplained wealth. Tama po ba na sa mga kaso ng unexplained wealth sa mga public officials, hindi po kailangang patunayan na galing sa illegal o ill-gotten ang yaman? 03:11:24.740 --> 03:11:35.260 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Ang sabi ng batas po ay unlawfully acquired yung property. Meaning to say, these assets were acquired laban or labag sa batas. 03:11:36.370 --> 03:11:37.090 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Okay. 03:11:40.650 --> 03:11:44.390 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: So, kailangan patunayan in that case? 03:11:45.520 --> 03:11:58.860 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes ma'am. But again, there is that presumption na kapag yung three requisites na nabanggit ko ay present, there is that presumption of that these properties were acquired illegally. 03:11:59.180 --> 03:11:59.880 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Yes 03:11:59.880 --> 03:12:00.300 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: ma'am. 03:12:00.300 --> 03:12:09.800 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: So ang kailangan lamang ay mapakita na may malaking kayamanan na hindi maipaliwanag saan galing. Yes ma'am. 03:12:12.820 --> 03:12:15.860 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Marami salamat po, Justice. Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer. 03:12:15.940 --> 03:12:20.160 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Senator-Judge Hontiveros. Are you ready for your cross, Attorney Mark? 03:12:20.480 --> 03:12:20.960 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Yes, Your Honor. 03:12:21.680 --> 03:12:23.460 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You may proceed, sir, when you're ready. 03:12:24.040 --> 03:12:28.720 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor, we are conducting cross-examination ad cautelam, for the record, Your Honor. 03:12:30.800 --> 03:12:32.700 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Yes, given your continuing objection. 03:12:34.360 --> 03:12:35.420 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Good afternoon, Justice. 03:12:35.820 --> 03:12:36.560 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Good afternoon, sir. 03:12:38.020 --> 03:12:42.700 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You served in government for over 40 years, correct? Around 40 years. 03:12:43.960 --> 03:12:44.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: 44 years. 03:12:45.220 --> 03:12:49.820 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Before anything else, thank you po for your many years of service in government. Thank 03:12:49.820 --> 03:12:49.880 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: you. 03:12:50.680 --> 03:12:54.260 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: My first question is, do you consider yourself a legal expert? 03:12:56.140 --> 03:13:00.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I will not make that judgment on myself but I will let others do that for me. 03:13:01.220 --> 03:13:07.980 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Okay. Now in the Philippines, there are no licensure examinations before one can become a legal expert, correct? 03:13:09.010 --> 03:13:10.290 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, in some cases. 03:13:11.390 --> 03:13:16.810 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: There are no definite standards before one can be considered a legal expert, am I right? 03:13:17.150 --> 03:13:17.450 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes. 03:13:18.110 --> 03:13:22.930 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: There are no certification programs before one can become a legal expert, correct? 03:13:23.250 --> 03:13:23.730 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:13:24.270 --> 03:13:29.530 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So being a legal expert is not an official designation in the Philippines, correct? 03:13:31.030 --> 03:13:34.880 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, there is no law that defines that. 03:13:35.080 --> 03:13:39.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Meaning being considered a legal expert is subjective, tama po ba? 03:13:40.660 --> 03:13:41.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I would say so, sir. 03:13:43.530 --> 03:13:46.710 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: All members of the bar consider you as a legal expert? 03:13:47.280 --> 03:13:49.140 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I don't believe so, sir. Okay, 03:13:49.200 --> 03:13:53.200 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: very well. Now, you became associate justice of the Sandigan Bayan in 2012? 03:13:53.820 --> 03:13:54.500 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:13:54.660 --> 03:13:56.760 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You were appointed by Pinoy, tama po ba? 03:13:57.000 --> 03:13:57.420 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:13:57.740 --> 03:14:01.640 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And the following year, 2013, you became presiding justice, tama? 03:14:01.780 --> 03:14:02.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:14:02.540 --> 03:14:05.100 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You were also appointed by Pinoy as such? 03:14:05.440 --> 03:14:05.820 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:14:06.670 --> 03:14:09.890 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So you were Sandigan Bayan justice for around 12 years? 03:14:10.350 --> 03:14:10.890 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:14:11.490 --> 03:14:13.290 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Until you retired in 2024. 03:14:13.910 --> 03:14:14.470 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:14:15.010 --> 03:14:19.600 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: My question is this. Did you become a Supreme Court Justice? 03:14:20.040 --> 03:14:20.420 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:14:20.740 --> 03:14:23.040 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Did you ever apply to become a Supreme 03:14:23.040 --> 03:14:23.460 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Court Justice? I 03:14:23.460 --> 03:14:23.580 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: did, sir. 03:14:23.700 --> 03:14:24.820 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: How many times po? 03:14:24.960 --> 03:14:25.900 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I think four times. 03:14:26.180 --> 03:14:31.900 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Four times, okay. And in all those four times, you were not selected to become a Supreme Court Justice? No, 03:14:31.920 --> 03:14:32.060 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 03:14:32.260 --> 03:14:47.710 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Okay. Now, I'm showing you a copy of a news article from ABS-CBN News Online po. Dated December 5, 2018 and titled, Sandigan Bayan Judge, accused of quote-unquote favoritism. I would have to interpose an objection, Your Honor. No 03:14:47.710 --> 03:14:49.650 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: question yet, Your Honor. For 03:14:49.650 --> 03:14:56.490 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: the sake of time, I'll just read the first paragraph and then I'll ask questions thereafter. It says here, a group of 03:14:56.490 --> 03:15:08.200 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: concerned... Your Honor, please, before the paragraph is read, my objection is fundamental. to the introduction of documents that have not been authenticated nor marked by the defense. 03:15:08.600 --> 03:15:09.040 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Even 03:15:09.040 --> 03:15:20.060 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: on cross-examination, if your honor, please. The documents used must be authenticated. There's no authentication yet of this document. 03:15:20.240 --> 03:15:24.020 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We note the objection of counsel. Atty. Mark, you may proceed. It 03:15:24.020 --> 03:15:38.540 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: says here, a group of concerned Sandigan Bayan employees of accused presiding justice Amparo Cabotajitang of quote-unquote favoritism and of running the court like ousted Chief Justice. My only question is this, ma'am. Are you familiar po with this issue of favoritism? 03:15:40.760 --> 03:15:53.600 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: But during your public panel interview for your Supreme Court application, were you ever confronted with this issue before? Before the Judicial and Bar Council or JBC? 03:15:54.180 --> 03:15:55.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I don't recall, sir. You don't 03:15:55.940 --> 03:16:07.500 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: recall. That's okay. At any rate, when you applied as Supreme Court Justice, it was FPRRD who was the appointing official at the time of your application? 03:16:09.090 --> 03:16:09.870 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:16:10.730 --> 03:16:14.190 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Were you ever disappointed at FPRRD for not appointing you? 03:16:14.370 --> 03:16:14.830 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:16:15.130 --> 03:16:15.570 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: That 03:16:15.570 --> 03:16:18.450 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: is his exclusive prerogative. 03:16:18.670 --> 03:16:20.930 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: But are you anti-Duterte? No, 03:16:21.050 --> 03:16:21.270 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I'm not. 03:16:21.410 --> 03:16:23.210 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Do you like VP Sara? 03:16:24.370 --> 03:16:25.810 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I do not know her personally. 03:16:27.530 --> 03:16:28.610 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Kakamping po ba kayo, ma'am? 03:16:31.610 --> 03:16:32.930 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Anong ibig sabihin nun? 03:16:36.360 --> 03:16:36.940 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Pink. 03:16:37.020 --> 03:16:42.500 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, I've never been political in my life. I've always been apolitical. Pero 03:16:42.500 --> 03:16:44.560 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: friends po kayo ni Representative Jocno. 03:16:44.840 --> 03:16:50.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, we were adversaries actually in the Amparo cases before the Court of Appeals. Alright, 03:16:50.520 --> 03:17:08.230 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I see. Now, considering your educational background as mentioned by Representative Diokno before in your professional background as well. Are you of the opinion that you are qualified to give legal opinions here today? 03:17:08.690 --> 03:17:15.970 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Again sir, I will not pass judgment on my expertise or absence of it. 03:17:16.370 --> 03:17:29.320 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright, I respect that ma'am but let me ask you a more pointed question. In your years as Sandigan Bayan Justice, have you ever allowed A former magistrate to testify as a witness and give legal opinions. 03:17:30.320 --> 03:17:34.350 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. Not... No, sir. 03:17:34.650 --> 03:17:38.030 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: No. You can explain, Poa. You wanted to explain. 03:17:38.330 --> 03:17:43.890 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, my point here is I'm no longer an incumbent member of the judiciary. Yeah, 03:17:43.890 --> 03:17:44.070 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: but when you 03:17:44.070 --> 03:17:49.210 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: were in Sandigan Bayan, was that ever a case that you allowed a former magistrate to testify as 03:17:49.210 --> 03:17:50.010 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: a witness? No, sir. 03:17:51.770 --> 03:17:56.650 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Because that former magistrate should be smart enough to know that such is not proper, correct? 03:18:00.280 --> 03:18:00.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yung 03:18:00.800 --> 03:18:07.900 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: pag-testify po nung magistrate na yun, she should know that it's not proper in Sandigan Bayan cases. 03:18:08.460 --> 03:18:13.000 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, it really would depend on the circumstances of the case, sir. 03:18:13.420 --> 03:18:20.950 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: In that case, in Sandigan Bayan cases, I'm not talking about this case, but is it unethical? For that justice to testify? 03:18:21.150 --> 03:18:24.530 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: In cases pending before the Sandigan Bayan? 03:18:24.690 --> 03:18:25.070 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Of 03:18:25.070 --> 03:18:25.670 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: course, sir. 03:18:26.070 --> 03:18:26.630 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Unethical? 03:18:27.050 --> 03:18:27.490 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Of course. 03:18:27.570 --> 03:18:34.970 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: At any rate, as a former magistrate yourself, you decided to testify today and give legal opinions in open court. 03:18:35.370 --> 03:18:43.730 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Objection, Your Honor. The witness, as I mentioned earlier, is here because she was subjected to a subpoena, an order by this honorable court. 03:18:43.910 --> 03:18:46.570 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: As requested, of course, by the panel of prosecutors' counsel. 03:18:49.660 --> 03:18:55.300 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Witnesses may answer. Witnesses, it's important to be able to answer and or parry any questions from counsel. 03:18:55.540 --> 03:19:00.820 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, given the choice, sir, I would not have come here without the subpoena. You can withdraw 03:19:00.820 --> 03:19:03.200 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: your testimony. Would you want to do that? 03:19:03.660 --> 03:19:05.120 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir, I'm already here. You're already 03:19:05.120 --> 03:19:18.940 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: here. Sayang naman, ma'am. Alright, sige. Since you were presented also as a legal expert, Although you were not qualified formally by the court. I'm sure you're familiar with Rule 129, Section 1 of the Rules on Evidence, correct? 03:19:21.360 --> 03:19:24.040 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I don't exactly recall that now, sir. 03:19:24.120 --> 03:20:03.400 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I'll help you, ma'am. I'll just read the salient portions. Actually, I displayed, flashed this a while ago on Section 1, Judicial Notice. I'll just read the salient portions. It says here, Judicial Notice when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence, and then I'll jump to the last paragraph, of official acts of legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines. The court had the ruling on this but I'll just ask your opinion. Based on this rule, the courts are required to take judicial notice of official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, correct? 03:20:03.760 --> 03:20:07.820 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes sir, but these rules are applicable only to the members of the judiciary. 03:20:08.460 --> 03:20:19.640 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Okay. Meron po bang, pinapalagay po ba na ang mga hukuman ay may kaalaman na talaga sa batas at hindi na kailangan ipaliwanag ang mga batas ng mga testigo or through testimonial proof? 03:20:19.860 --> 03:20:20.260 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Tama po. 03:20:20.420 --> 03:20:28.890 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Tama. Okay. So if the testimony po is about loss, no need po to call a witness to establish them. Tama po ba? 03:20:28.990 --> 03:20:37.770 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct because judges are should actually take judicial notice of laws as well as decisions of the Supreme Court. 03:20:38.090 --> 03:20:38.630 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: At at any rate po, ma 03:20:38.630 --> 03:20:42.810 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: 'am, ganun po yung ginawa niyo dito. Tinulungan niya lang yung senator-judges. Ganun po ba ang nangyari? 03:20:44.660 --> 03:20:49.640 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Kasi yung explained laws po, I gave legal opinions eh. Ano pong masasabi 03:20:51.170 --> 03:20:53.070 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: niyo doon? Ganun po ba ang nangyari dito, ma'am? 03:20:53.350 --> 03:21:07.470 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, I'm here because I was subpoenaed by the impeachment court and if my testimony could be of value or aid. In the just resolution of this case, I will be happy with that. 03:21:07.630 --> 03:21:15.530 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: But do you confirm po that the court never invited you po to offer your testimony as an amicus curiae or friend of the court? 03:21:15.650 --> 03:21:15.950 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:21:16.090 --> 03:21:23.030 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Wala, okay. Now let me direct your attention to the Supreme Court ruling on Kasumpang v. Cortejo regarding question of law. 03:21:24.110 --> 03:21:25.090 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Sabi po dito, 03:21:25.250 --> 03:21:51.370 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: GR No. 171-127, March 11, 2015. Sabi po, a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. While there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged acts. My only question is this. It is the court's function to resolve questions of law. Tama po. 03:21:51.770 --> 03:21:56.290 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. And even ascertainment of the facts based on the evidence. It 03:21:56.290 --> 03:21:57.730 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: is not the function of the witness. 03:21:58.350 --> 03:21:59.050 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Of course not, sir. 03:21:59.210 --> 03:22:28.480 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Now, let me direct your attention to Rule 130, Section 52, and I'll read Opinion of Expert Witness. I think this was already alluded to earlier. The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education which he or she is shown to possess may be received in evidence. Based on this rule, ma'am, an expert opinion is admissible when it concerns specialized matters, correct? 03:22:28.860 --> 03:22:29.500 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:22:30.040 --> 03:22:35.100 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: But such is not the case here because you were asked to testify on legal principles. Tama po ba? 03:22:35.440 --> 03:22:41.860 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. In fact, the presiding judge said that I am testifying now not as an expert witness. 03:22:42.120 --> 03:22:47.640 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: In fact, these legal principles that were mentioned a while ago are basic even to law students, correct? 03:22:48.060 --> 03:22:48.640 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:22:49.380 --> 03:22:54.980 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So, no need for a master's degree in law to understand these legal principles, correct? 03:22:56.690 --> 03:23:07.610 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: But you have to read these laws in its proper application by the Supreme Court to be able to fully and soundly understand or comprehend. 03:23:07.890 --> 03:23:22.470 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I understand, Justice, but my question is no need for a master's degree in law. No, sir. In fact, you never testified to having a master's degree? No, sir. Moreover, interpretation of legal principles is also the court's function, is it not? 03:23:23.000 --> 03:23:23.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:23:24.210 --> 03:23:28.530 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: An expert witness cannot simply usurp that function, correct? 03:23:29.070 --> 03:23:29.650 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:23:29.850 --> 03:23:30.070 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Okay, 03:23:31.850 --> 03:23:37.890 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: let's move on. As Sandigan Bayan Justice, how many decisions were you part of, as ponente or otherwise? 03:23:40.640 --> 03:23:44.880 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Probably around... 300 cases. 300? 03:23:45.140 --> 03:23:49.340 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Ang dami. But let me direct your attention to Article 8 of the Civil Code. 03:23:49.860 --> 03:23:50.420 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: It 03:23:50.420 --> 03:24:08.000 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: says here, Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. So, the judicial decisions under this article pertain to Supreme Court decisions and not trial court decisions. Sama po ba? 03:24:08.020 --> 03:24:08.440 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct sir. 03:24:08.940 --> 03:24:11.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: My next question is this. Sandigan ba yung decisions 03:24:15.910 --> 03:24:16.470 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: In 03:24:16.470 --> 03:24:26.310 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: fact, Sandigan Bayan decisions are subject to review, reversal, and modification by the Supreme Court. Meaning, they can be overturned by the Supreme Court. 03:24:26.870 --> 03:24:27.430 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: In 03:24:27.430 --> 03:24:34.440 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: the decisions that you were part of, for example, were there decisions that the Supreme Court overturned? 03:24:34.740 --> 03:24:35.300 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Meaning, 03:24:36.240 --> 03:24:38.760 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: the Supreme Court had a different interpretation of the 03:24:38.760 --> 03:24:38.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: law. 03:24:41.230 --> 03:24:52.410 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: In fact, following the reversal, yung minention ko po kanina, you had a comment na nare-reverse talaga yung Sandigan Bayan decision in certain cases by the Supreme Court. Correct, 03:24:52.550 --> 03:25:02.930 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. But let me just correct again, sir, that I was not part of the division that rendered that resolution denying the demurrer to evidence. Sa media niyo 03:25:02.930 --> 03:25:03.890 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: po yata sinabi ito, no? 03:25:11.290 --> 03:25:14.070 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: May I ask 03:25:14.070 --> 03:25:22.890 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: that the Council for Defense be instructed to wait for the witness to finish her answer before interrupting her. That's all. No 03:25:22.890 --> 03:25:33.950 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: need to be instructed, Your Honor. I will comply. In other words, your interpretation of the law In those overturned cases that you mentioned, were not binding upon the Supreme Court, correct? 03:25:34.130 --> 03:25:34.730 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Of course, sir. 03:25:35.070 --> 03:25:43.590 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Just as your interpretation of the law, which you testified on today, is also not binding upon this honorable impeachment court. 03:25:43.810 --> 03:25:54.190 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, it's so far as the opinions that I gave, personal opinions that I gave, but those that I made based on Supreme Court decisions, they are the Supreme Court decisions. 03:25:54.880 --> 03:26:00.060 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: By the way, in relation to this case po, did you execute any document that contains your legal opinions? 03:26:00.620 --> 03:26:01.020 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:26:01.180 --> 03:26:08.520 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Wala. So kung ano lang po yung sinabi nyo dito in open court, yun lang po yung mga legal opinions that you deemed relevant insofar as this case is concerned? Yes, 03:26:08.560 --> 03:26:08.740 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 03:26:08.860 --> 03:26:47.570 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. Now, let's talk about the subpoena. I'm showing you a copy of the prosecution's request for subpoena. It states, Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, retired, former presiding justice, Sandigan Bayan, care of Office of Akbayan Party List. By the way, this is the typographical error from the prosecution, not from the defense. Representative Jose Manuel Chel Diokno, Room 502, South Wing, House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City, 1126. So, my question is very simple. Are you connected with Akbayan Party List? No, 03:26:47.610 --> 03:26:47.750 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 03:26:47.930 --> 03:26:50.070 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Do you hold office in Batasan Complex? 03:26:50.170 --> 03:26:50.490 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:26:52.230 --> 03:26:54.650 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: How long have you known Representative Diokno? 03:26:55.690 --> 03:27:18.990 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, I've known him during my days in the OSG when, as I mentioned earlier, we became adversaries in the Amparo cases which we both handled. But I've not met him since I left OSG. It was only before this impeachment trial. 03:27:19.390 --> 03:27:22.450 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Ah, so you never met him in... Any other event? 03:27:22.850 --> 03:27:28.250 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I don't recall. Maybe in one... I don't exactly recall. 03:27:28.310 --> 03:27:28.590 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You 03:27:28.590 --> 03:27:40.170 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: don't recall. I'll help you recall. I'm showing you a photo of an event depicting you, Rep. Chelle Jocno, Rep. Rene Co, and Winnie Monsod, among others. 03:27:42.140 --> 03:27:53.360 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: This was an event by UP Law. Do you confirm that this photo is... I'll use a clicker. Kayo po ito, ma'am, yung naka-white? 03:27:55.660 --> 03:27:56.380 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:27:57.060 --> 03:28:00.460 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Ito po, sino po ba ito? Si Representative Cotto, no? 03:28:01.300 --> 03:28:07.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I think that was the event where I delivered a lecture on anti-corruption. 03:28:08.280 --> 03:28:08.460 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Okay. 03:28:09.320 --> 03:28:09.840 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Pero 03:28:09.840 --> 03:28:14.360 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: just to be sure po, do you have any plans of joining Akbay and Partylist in 03:28:14.360 --> 03:28:21.470 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: the future? No, sir. As I have said earlier, I've never been political in my life. I want to maintain that. 03:28:22.030 --> 03:28:35.410 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Your Honor, may I just make a manifestation that earlier, Council for the Defense mentioned that I was part of the photograph. No, not photograph. It listed as one of the participants. May I finish, 03:28:35.550 --> 03:28:36.170 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: please, sir? 03:28:36.510 --> 03:28:44.750 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Sure. Unfortunately, I do not see myself in the photograph. So may, I think that should be corrected in the record. 03:28:45.480 --> 03:28:53.100 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: I also heard he's part of the Photograph Council. So you're not, but Chair would like to note that you're not in the photograph. Atty. Mark, he's not in the photograph, right? Not 03:28:53.100 --> 03:28:54.500 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: in the photograph, Your Honor. But 03:28:54.500 --> 03:28:55.580 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: in the article of the Philippine 03:28:55.580 --> 03:28:55.680 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: In 03:28:55.680 --> 03:28:56.040 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: the Review. article, 03:28:56.220 --> 03:29:14.420 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Representative Diokno was listed as one of the participants. He can just deny it if it's not. Okay. I'm not a witness here, Your Honor, please. Please proceed, Council. Atty. Mark, proceed. Alright. I just wanted to know the logistics of how it happened. Did Representative Diokno personally give you the subpoena? 03:29:15.300 --> 03:29:17.740 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, it was sent to me through email. 03:29:19.080 --> 03:29:21.340 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Who emailed you the subpoena? 03:29:22.380 --> 03:29:24.640 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Congressman Diokno, sir. And you 03:29:24.640 --> 03:29:26.280 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: consider that to be in order, ma'am? 03:29:28.380 --> 03:29:36.420 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, the Supreme Court now allows service even by email. I 03:29:36.420 --> 03:29:42.010 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: understand that, ma'am. But under the rules, isn't it the court's duty to serve the subpoena? If Your 03:29:42.010 --> 03:29:48.770 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Honor, please, the question is argumentative. The service of the court was done. And it was done through this representative. I'm 03:29:48.770 --> 03:29:55.650 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: clarifying what happened thereon. This goes into the connection of the witness to the prosecution. 03:29:56.170 --> 03:30:02.960 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We followed the same rules. Justice Tang would know. Please answer, Justice Tang. Can you please 03:30:02.960 --> 03:30:03.460 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: repeat the 03:30:03.460 --> 03:30:03.800 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: question? 03:30:03.960 --> 03:30:07.760 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: It's very basic. Under the rules, isn't it the court's duty to serve the subpoena? 03:30:09.390 --> 03:30:15.450 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, yes, but sometimes the court designates another person to do it. 03:30:15.930 --> 03:30:19.330 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Was Representative Diokno ever designated by the court 03:30:19.330 --> 03:30:20.050 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: to serve the subpoena? 03:30:20.070 --> 03:30:20.370 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: That I do not know, sir. 03:30:20.550 --> 03:30:24.970 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You just assumed that the court designated him to serve the subpoena. 03:30:25.350 --> 03:30:29.370 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I assume that he had the authority to send it to me. May 03:30:29.370 --> 03:30:35.410 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: we know, Your Honor, if the court issued any written authority for Representative Diokno to issue the subpoena to this witness? 03:30:35.610 --> 03:30:57.460 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: No, that was the address given by the panel of prosecutors for the witness, retired Justice Tang. And under the rules, we rather send the subpoena to whatever address. is given us by the prosecutor. And in your case, when it's time for you to request for subpoena, we will do the same counsel. 03:30:57.640 --> 03:31:08.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Yeah, I understand that, Your Honor. But my question is, was there any authority that was issued by the court for Representative Diokno to serve the subpoena by email to the witness? 03:31:08.760 --> 03:31:18.840 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: If Your Honor, please, the presiding officer is not under oath. He is not testifying. I don't think it is the prerogative of the defense to ask him. A question. 03:31:19.100 --> 03:31:24.600 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The court already answered. That was the address given. That is why that is where the subpoena was sent, counsel. 03:31:25.100 --> 03:31:32.950 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: We will just move on, Your Honor. Were you promised anything in return in exchange for your testimony today, Poaman? 03:31:33.170 --> 03:31:33.690 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:31:34.350 --> 03:31:34.870 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And 03:31:34.870 --> 03:31:40.590 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I will never testify if ever I was offered anything material or otherwise. 03:31:41.330 --> 03:31:41.850 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: My 03:31:41.850 --> 03:31:43.650 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: testimony is not for sale, sir. 03:31:43.830 --> 03:31:50.620 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Okay. This is totally unrelated but We just wanted to confirm for a fact, are you vying for an ambassadorial position at the moment? 03:31:50.620 --> 03:31:50.900 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:31:51.000 --> 03:31:51.340 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I 03:31:51.340 --> 03:31:53.920 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: am retired and I want to enjoy my retirement. Alright. 03:31:54.100 --> 03:32:02.200 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Thank you for that clarification, ma'am. But did Representative Diokno inform you in advance of the questions that he will ask of you today? 03:32:02.720 --> 03:32:08.540 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Those are not the questions but honestly, he told me about the laws regarding sal-in and the like. 03:32:09.120 --> 03:32:11.340 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So, just the concepts but not particular 03:32:11.340 --> 03:32:11.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: concepts? Yes, sir. 03:32:13.620 --> 03:32:19.180 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Did you know beforehand whether you will be presented as a legal expert or just an ordinary witness? 03:32:20.390 --> 03:32:21.810 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: As an expert, sir. 03:32:21.950 --> 03:32:28.700 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: As an expert. Okay. But you know that a witness can only testify based on his personal knowledge, correct? 03:32:28.840 --> 03:32:29.320 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:32:30.000 --> 03:32:33.340 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: A witness cannot testify on conclusions of law, correct? 03:32:33.340 --> 03:32:33.960 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Of course, sir. 03:32:34.200 --> 03:32:38.880 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And yet your testimony included conclusions of law. Argumentative, Your Honor, please. 03:32:40.180 --> 03:32:41.060 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Move on, counsel. 03:32:43.080 --> 03:32:45.820 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Move on, counsel. Witness need not answer that question. 03:32:46.780 --> 03:32:51.340 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Now, before you testified, you swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 03:32:51.680 --> 03:32:52.260 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:32:52.560 --> 03:33:00.210 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Do you believe that public accountability is tested, especially when no one is looking? 03:33:01.390 --> 03:33:01.990 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:33:02.190 --> 03:33:02.490 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: My 03:33:02.590 --> 03:33:11.170 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: question to you is this. In your 40 years in government service, have you encountered offers of bribery? 03:33:11.630 --> 03:33:12.190 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:33:12.810 --> 03:33:16.090 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: In your estimation po, how many offers have you encountered? 03:33:16.830 --> 03:33:25.870 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: One in the office of the Solicitor General. But I directed that person to leave my office and I banged 03:33:25.870 --> 03:33:26.150 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: the door. 03:33:26.510 --> 03:33:29.930 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You banged the door. In your years in Sandigan Bayan, wala po kayo na-encounter? 03:33:29.930 --> 03:33:34.730 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. Because I never allowed anyone to visit me, even my relatives. 03:33:35.710 --> 03:33:54.300 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. Now, balik po tayo dun sa personal knowledge po. Since you are A legal expert or you were intended to be presented as one. I'll ask a few legal questions also in the interest of fairness, ma'am. Court rulings must be based on facts and evidence, correct? 03:33:54.640 --> 03:33:55.740 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: That's basic, sir. 03:33:56.260 --> 03:34:00.480 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And sound legal opinions must also be based on facts and evidence. 03:34:00.920 --> 03:34:01.660 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, again, sir. 03:34:02.140 --> 03:34:08.320 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Now, a magistrate must study the facts and evidence first and then apply the law and jurisprudence, correct? 03:34:08.540 --> 03:34:09.020 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:34:09.550 --> 03:34:15.270 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: My question is this. Before giving your legal opinions today, did you study the facts of this case in full? 03:34:17.390 --> 03:34:31.490 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I never made any conclusion of fact or law here regarding this case. All I dwelt on were our laws about anti-corruption and their application by the Supreme Court. 03:34:31.690 --> 03:34:43.350 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So the short answer is no. You did not study the facts. Okay. And despite not being fully apprised of the facts and evidence of both parties, You decided to give your legal opinion today anyway. 03:34:43.990 --> 03:34:52.790 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Only with respect to the proper applications of the anti-corruption laws as ruled by the Supreme Court. 03:34:53.150 --> 03:35:01.690 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. Just one question on this. Article 2 is about unexplained wealth. Do you have personal knowledge whether VP Sara amassed unexplained wealth? No, 03:35:01.750 --> 03:35:01.790 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 03:35:02.430 --> 03:35:07.590 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Now, you were asked several questions about SAL-N a while ago. 03:35:09.610 --> 03:35:10.890 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Are you aware 03:35:36.200 --> 03:35:44.950 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Yung cash po. Sabi niyo po dapat siyang dineclare as a specific line disclosure. Tama po ba? 03:35:45.170 --> 03:35:45.650 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:35:45.810 --> 03:35:51.150 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. And you cited as your basis Section 8 of Republic Act 6713? 03:35:51.570 --> 03:35:52.130 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:35:52.270 --> 03:36:09.180 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. Now, we are confronting you po with that particular RA. We have that Section 8. Can you point us po to the portion where it requires A specific line disclosure for cash. 03:36:12.280 --> 03:36:15.640 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: If you need a hard copy, ma'am, we'll gladly provide you with one. 03:36:53.200 --> 03:36:59.500 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: My question to you is this, is there any prohibition po to lump cash with other personal properties? 03:37:00.420 --> 03:37:13.460 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: The law does not make any prohibition there, but there is a specific directive for the public officer to indicate specifically this bank, cash on bank, cash on hand, or cash in bank, sir. 03:37:14.940 --> 03:37:19.700 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So, again, the short answer is no prohibition. Correct? 03:37:23.570 --> 03:37:26.470 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Walang explicit provision po. Tama. 03:37:28.040 --> 03:37:34.960 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Prohibition, but there is a directive. So, I guess if there is directive, then that must be complied with, sir. 03:37:35.460 --> 03:37:39.160 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. That is your interpretation of that provision. Yes, 03:37:39.160 --> 03:37:49.750 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. Now, do you have personal knowledge of all of VP Sara's lawful income from 2022 up to the present? No, 03:37:49.770 --> 03:37:49.930 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. sir. 03:37:50.030 --> 03:38:22.640 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. Let me direct your attention to the recent case of Duterte versus House of Representatives. GR numbers 278353 and 278359, July 25, 2025. And I'll read paragraph 6. 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. For the President and Vice President, these acts must be sufficiently grave 03:38:25.690 --> 03:38:35.450 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Amounting to the crimes described in Article 11, Section 3-1, or a betrayal of public trust given by the majority of the electorate. Do you agree with this ruling? 03:38:37.010 --> 03:38:41.690 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, when the Supreme Court speaks, sir, we follow. 03:38:42.010 --> 03:38:50.010 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Based on this portion of the ruling, charges against the Vice President must pertain to her current term as Vice President, correct? 03:38:51.420 --> 03:38:55.060 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Actually, sir, I have not read the impeachment charges here. 03:38:55.550 --> 03:39:03.850 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: But based on this reading of this rule, the charges against VP Sara must pertain to her current term as Vice President, correct? 03:39:04.920 --> 03:39:09.160 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I will not, pardon me, but I cannot comment on that. 03:39:09.400 --> 03:39:19.340 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You cannot? Alright. So you also cannot comment on what the proper baseline for Hizal should be, correct? Whether it's 2007? 03:39:20.960 --> 03:39:28.500 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: or 2015 or 2022. Hindi rin po kayo makapagsabi. We will respect that. 03:39:30.390 --> 03:39:38.470 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: But as a general principle, impeachment proceedings are directed against the respondent impeachable officer, correct? 03:39:38.770 --> 03:39:39.390 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:39:40.080 --> 03:39:42.880 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: They do not extend to private citizens, correct? 03:39:43.060 --> 03:39:43.500 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:39:44.270 --> 03:39:54.110 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And the basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions Committed in relation to the impeachable officer's office. Correct? 03:39:54.470 --> 03:39:54.970 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, 03:39:54.970 --> 03:39:55.140 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 03:39:55.140 --> 03:39:55.330 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Okay. 03:39:55.830 --> 03:39:57.250 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Not her family members? 03:40:00.220 --> 03:40:08.300 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, unless it may be related to any of the grounds, impeachable grounds stated or defined in the Constitution. 03:40:08.820 --> 03:40:13.340 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: But if it's not traceable, then it's not extended to the family members, correct? 03:40:13.620 --> 03:40:16.520 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Again, I will not, pardon me, sir, but I cannot speculate. 03:40:16.940 --> 03:40:17.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You cannot speculate. 03:40:19.450 --> 03:40:24.230 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. So, hindi po siya parang chess na everything points to the queen? 03:40:26.250 --> 03:40:29.150 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: May I ask that the... Well, the question is vague. 03:40:29.670 --> 03:40:30.970 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Do you play chess, ma 03:40:31.210 --> 03:40:35.450 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: 'am? I'll change the question. Do you play chess, ma'am? Mag-chess po kayo? 03:40:36.100 --> 03:40:38.060 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. But not anymore. 03:40:38.800 --> 03:40:49.000 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Ah, you're aware. But you are aware that in chess, as powerful as she is, the queen is never checkmated. It is the king that is checkmated. Tama po ba? 03:40:50.240 --> 03:40:51.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I think so. 03:40:52.050 --> 03:40:55.170 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Now, by the way, do you know the Vice President's salary grade? 03:40:57.400 --> 03:40:58.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:40:58.200 --> 03:41:04.240 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Hindi. So, you don't know the current rate of salary grade of the Vice President also? 03:41:04.540 --> 03:41:05.100 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:41:05.340 --> 03:41:25.000 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. In fact, in Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment, the relevant portions allege. Your Honor, this is the Articles of Impeachment. If we can testify, if we can confront her with this, then... It shows the irrelevance of her entire testimony. So, I hope I'll be allowed 03:41:25.000 --> 03:41:25.660 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: to honor. If 03:41:25.660 --> 03:41:34.340 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: you're on a case, the witness already testified that she has no knowledge of the articles of impeachment. Therefore, there would be no basis for her to be asked about it. 03:41:34.400 --> 03:41:36.800 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: We'll just ask about general principles anyway. I'll 03:41:36.800 --> 03:41:39.200 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: allow it, counsel. Let's give him sufficient latitude. 03:41:39.620 --> 03:42:43.140 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. On page 10 of the articles of impeachment, po. Based on these figures, the total salary income constitutive of the bulk of aggregate lawful income in government of respondent as a public official for the years 2007 to 2009 as vice mayor, 2010 to 2012, and 2016 to 2021 as mayor, and 2022 to 2024 as vice president is approximately 30 million. Now on page 12 of that same articles of impeachment, Sabi, however, as shown earlier, the lawful income of respondent and her spouse for the same period only amounts to roughly 30 million. So, in other words po, ma'am, biglang nasama si Man Scarpio, yung husband, dun sa 30 million as if wala po siyang kinita. My question to you is this, do you know the salary of VP Sara's husband from 2007 up to the present? 03:42:43.440 --> 03:42:43.960 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:42:44.200 --> 03:42:52.820 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Wala. Yung mga utang sa husband niya, ma'am? May personal knowledge kayo of those? Now, do you know if they have private passive income? 03:42:53.320 --> 03:42:54.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Wala rin. 03:42:54.440 --> 03:43:05.160 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: How about earnings from investments? Meaning, you also do not have personal knowledge whether VP Sara's declared wealth is disproportionate to her actual wealth. Tama? 03:43:05.260 --> 03:43:05.900 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Now, 03:43:06.700 --> 03:43:11.600 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment alleges the following. It says here, 03:43:14.050 --> 03:43:52.140 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: The investigation reports from the AMLC on respondent and her spouse indicate that the bank transactions involving their bank accounts may have been involved in predicate offenses of money laundering, particularly drug trafficking and related offenses, graft and corrupt practices, and malversation of public funds. Ma'am, matagal na kayong naging justice. My question is this. When you use the phrase may have been involved in predicate offenses in the allegation. Does that signify po that you are sure about your allegation or you are not sure 03:43:52.140 --> 03:44:04.980 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: about your allegation? The question is misleading, Your Honor. The entire paragraph refers to investigative reports from the HAMLA. So there's no direct allegation by the prosecution of that statement. 03:44:05.140 --> 03:44:07.880 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor, I don't understand the objection. My question is very simple, 03:44:08.000 --> 03:44:08.740 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Your Honor. Based 03:44:08.740 --> 03:44:18.390 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: on her experience, Your Honor. When the allegation uses the phrase, may have been involved, is the allegation sure or unsure? 03:44:39.650 --> 03:44:44.310 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: to the investigative reports from the Anti-Money Laundering Council. Therefore, the question is misleading. 03:44:44.670 --> 03:44:45.490 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Either way, Your Honor. 03:44:46.510 --> 03:44:53.690 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Counsel, please. If she knows, she stated earlier she's not familiar with the impeachment complaint anyway. So, if you know, Justice Tang? 03:44:54.010 --> 03:45:02.330 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, if you talk of cases or information that are criminal information that are filed in court, that will not be acceptable. 03:45:02.730 --> 03:45:14.200 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Not acceptable. Very good. Very clear. And if you are unsure, Of your allegation, meaning unacceptable yung ginamit mo na phrase, you can't allege it in the first place, tama? Yes. Alright. 03:45:16.000 --> 03:45:23.060 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: How about you, ma'am, personally? Do you have personal knowledge of any predicate offense of money laundering by the Vice President? No, 03:45:23.080 --> 03:45:23.260 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 03:45:23.500 --> 03:45:24.960 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Do you have any— Your Honor, if 03:45:24.960 --> 03:45:51.310 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: I may interrupt, I've been keeping quiet because I understand that we would like to give the— Defense, as much leeway as possible. But it's very clear that the witness has repeatedly said that she has no personal knowledge of anything related to this case. May I finish, Your Honor? Kung paulit-ulit lang po siyang itatanong tungkol sa mga bagay na ito, maaksaya lang po ang oras nitong kagalang-galang na impeachment court. 03:45:52.220 --> 03:46:01.120 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: We'll allow it. We'll continue to allow it, counsel. But, Attorney Mark, we get the point. She has no personal knowledge about anything about this case. 03:46:01.460 --> 03:46:27.720 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I understand that your honor but I understand also that a while ago the court allowed us leeway in terms of making also presenting our side as well and asking these questions on personal knowledge is our way of reconditioning the mind of the public, whether this Justice Tang, with all due respect to her, should have been presented in the first place. Just 03:46:27.720 --> 03:46:28.420 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: a little 03:46:28.420 --> 03:46:29.300 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: leeway, Your Honor. 03:46:29.460 --> 03:46:40.100 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Again, counsel, we're allowing it. All I'm saying is we also get the point already. You can move on, counsel, and wind up on this subject matter. 03:46:40.380 --> 03:46:42.820 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Just one question, po, on this subject matter. 03:46:45.260 --> 03:46:56.700 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Corrupt practices and malversation. Very familiar po kayo dito. I just have one question. In your years po in Sandigan Bayan, did you ever handle a graft case involving Sara Duterte? 03:46:56.920 --> 03:46:57.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:46:58.580 --> 03:47:06.460 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Last few points on Sal N. You also have no personal knowledge of any liabilities that she incurred, right? 03:47:06.700 --> 03:47:07.260 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:47:07.420 --> 03:47:09.600 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Credit card, debts, and loans, correct? 03:47:09.880 --> 03:47:10.260 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:47:10.900 --> 03:47:20.900 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: This is a matter of law on SALN. When a public official files po an ITR, AFS or SALN for example, the presumption is good faith, correct? 03:47:21.120 --> 03:47:21.680 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 03:47:22.640 --> 03:48:00.090 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Let me direct your attention to Montejo v. COA, GR No. 232-272, July 24, 2018. Every public official is entitled to the presumption of good faith in the discharge of official duties. Absent any showing of bad faith or malice, there is likewise a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Of course, you agree with this ruling? Yes, sir. When a public official files their ITR, AFS, or some SAL-N, according to the law, ang presumption po is good faith, tama? 03:48:00.210 --> 03:48:00.790 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:48:00.970 --> 03:48:03.130 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Hindi po presumption yung concealment of wealth? 03:48:03.170 --> 03:48:03.490 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:48:05.940 --> 03:48:29.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And like any other official, VP Sara po also enjoys the presumption of good faith and regularity. Now let's talk about yung divestment. Now under the Constitution, a vice president, not necessarily VP Sara, but a vice president must strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of her office, correct? 03:48:29.800 --> 03:48:30.300 Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson: President 03:48:30.300 --> 03:48:37.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: and vice president, tama po ba? Now, I will show you a SAL-N that we gathered. This is publicly available. 03:48:39.270 --> 03:48:45.910 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: This is the SAL-N of President BBM as of December 31, 2025. 03:48:47.170 --> 03:48:54.350 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: I would have to object, Your Honor, please. This is way beyond the scope of the direct examination. It's irrelevant and it's immaterial. 03:48:54.690 --> 03:49:02.840 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I'll ask a question on SAL-N, Your Honor. A general legal principle that the witness also alluded to. We'll 03:49:02.840 --> 03:49:05.300 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: allow it, counsel. I'm giving counsel some leeway. 03:49:06.230 --> 03:49:16.990 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. So a while ago po, you mentioned po that a president or vice president is absolutely prohibited from having financial interests in companies. Tama po ba? 03:49:17.090 --> 03:49:17.490 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:49:17.850 --> 03:49:45.610 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Dito po kasi sa sal ni presidente, as of December 31, 2025, meron po mga nakalista. If we can zoom in. Pero if I could just describe, may nakanlista mga financial interests po sa mga business, financial and business interests sa mga kumpanya, no? So are you saying that this falls under what you mentioned about absolute prohibition in business and financial interests? 03:49:45.750 --> 03:49:58.470 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Before the witness answers, if your honor, please, I relate this to my earlier objection. We have no way of knowing if what counsel is showing is a authenticated copy of the sale and we have no way of knowing if that actually 03:50:11.240 --> 03:50:11.760 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At 03:50:11.760 --> 03:50:20.280 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: the proper time, counsel, I believe a counsel for the respondent will be making that marking. Kindly zoom it properly. We cannot see it, counsel. 03:50:25.670 --> 03:50:28.190 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor, this is publicly available and reported 03:50:28.190 --> 03:50:29.830 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: by GMA News. Just 03:50:29.830 --> 03:50:30.410 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: for the record. 03:50:30.550 --> 03:50:43.110 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Just the fact that it's publicly available and reported by the news does not make, does not authenticate it, Your Honor. The court already ruled. I'm just responding, Your Honor, to the statement of Defense Counsel. Ayako po makipag-away. 03:50:43.870 --> 03:50:49.650 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Ako rin po. Not your character, Honorable Chell. Anyway. Ako rin po, Your Honor. 03:50:55.220 --> 03:51:10.680 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Do we have that? Could we zoom in? But at any rate, we can do that later. But if there are declarations of financial and business interests by the President, for example, isn't that what you mentioned about absolute prohibition? 03:51:11.930 --> 03:51:15.970 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Pardon me, sir, but I wish not to answer that question. Okay 03:51:15.970 --> 03:51:29.220 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: lang po, ma'am. We will respect that. Alright. Do you have personal knowledge? As to the status of business interests of the vice president? 03:51:29.580 --> 03:51:30.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: None, sir. 03:51:30.580 --> 03:51:51.920 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Wala rin po. The fact that, this is hypothetical since you're an expert, the fact that a president's or a vice president's name appears in a GIS, for example, general information sheet of a company, does that rise to the level of an impeachable offense? 03:51:59.750 --> 03:52:01.210 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I'll just move on. 03:52:03.240 --> 03:52:14.680 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Now, let me direct your attention to the salient portions of Volume 2 of the Record of Constitutional Commission, pages 402-403. Kilala niyo po si Florence Regalado? Yes, 03:52:14.680 --> 03:52:21.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. He was the longest dean of the San Pedro College of Law. Serving dean. But he already died. 03:52:25.530 --> 03:52:27.490 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Sabi ni Mr. Regalado dito po, 03:52:45.860 --> 03:52:50.960 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Legitimate in nature provided it does not conflict with the objective sought in this section. 03:52:51.220 --> 03:53:11.220 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Before the witness answers, Your Honor, may we ask... No question yet, Your Honor. Just so that this is on the record, Your Honor. There is a portion here that is redacted. I believe if the witness will be asked about this, the witness should be allowed to see the redacted portion of that... No question yet, Your Honor. 03:53:11.580 --> 03:53:20.840 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: There's no question yet and I have exactly the same quote here, counsel. I'll have it checked if there is a redacted portion. We can ask it later. 03:53:21.180 --> 03:53:24.160 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: There is, Your Honor, because this is a long deliberation, Your Honor. But 03:53:24.160 --> 03:53:25.180 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: they also have the same quotation. 03:53:25.600 --> 03:53:31.400 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: We are just noting the salient portions, Your Honor. But we confirm that there's a redacted portion. 03:53:31.400 --> 03:53:32.900 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Kindly ask your question, counsel. 03:53:33.180 --> 03:53:40.980 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: My question is, based on this portion of the deliberations, the public official can engage in income-producing activity, correct? 03:53:41.680 --> 03:53:43.100 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I have not read that, sir. 03:53:43.220 --> 03:53:43.560 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I 03:53:43.560 --> 03:53:44.860 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: just heard it now. 03:53:45.040 --> 03:53:53.480 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Okay, so you don't agree that he can engage in income producing or revenue producing as long as it's lawful? Hindi po kayo agree doon? 03:53:53.680 --> 03:54:02.620 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir, because the Constitution has worded there is an absolute ban on the president, vice president, secretaries, members of his cabinet. 03:54:03.020 --> 03:54:10.730 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So even if there is no conflict of interest, you don't agree that it's not prohibited? 03:54:12.590 --> 03:54:32.030 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: The Constitution, again, according to the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Liberties Union, the prohibition does not simply refer to actual conflict of interest but potential conflict of interest. That is what is sought to be prevented by this prohibition. 03:54:32.310 --> 03:54:40.430 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright, so I'll ask you a hypothetical question again. Does the OVP, not necessarily VP Sara, but does the OVP have licensing functions? 03:54:42.240 --> 03:54:43.820 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: That I'm not aware of, sir. 03:54:44.000 --> 03:54:46.560 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Does it have permitting functions? Nag-i-issue ng mga permit. 03:54:47.500 --> 03:54:48.660 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I guess not, sir. 03:54:48.700 --> 03:54:50.640 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Does it have regulatory functions? 03:54:51.800 --> 03:54:52.920 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I'm not sure, sir. 03:54:52.940 --> 03:54:54.120 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: How about revenue functions? 03:54:54.800 --> 03:54:55.980 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I don't think so, sir. 03:54:56.080 --> 03:55:04.080 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I don't think so. And any other functions that will benefit the vice president when that vice president has investee corporations? 03:55:05.420 --> 03:55:06.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I don't know, sir. 03:55:06.400 --> 03:55:20.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You're not sure? Alright, let's go to the bank accounts. Again, just a few questions on this. Do you have personal knowledge of the transactions in Vice President Sara's account with BPI, for example? 03:55:21.040 --> 03:55:21.520 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 03:55:21.720 --> 03:55:22.220 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Metro Bank? 03:55:23.620 --> 03:55:24.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Absolutely none, sir. 03:55:24.740 --> 03:55:27.260 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Any other banks? Wala rin po? 03:55:27.280 --> 03:55:27.440 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Wala. 03:55:28.540 --> 03:55:51.180 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I'll give you a scenario since you don't have personal knowledge. If a person or a public official deposits 500,000 in a bank account, for example, I'll use a pointer, your honor. Kung mede-deposit siya na 500,000, that is a covered transaction under the AMLA, tama po ba? 03:55:51.500 --> 03:55:58.600 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, I think under the anti-money laundering law, it's more than 500 pesos. 03:55:59.780 --> 03:56:00.260 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Ah, 03:56:00.300 --> 03:56:01.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: 500,000 pesos. O 03:56:01.720 --> 03:56:03.440 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: yun nga po, 500,000 nga po yan. 03:56:04.120 --> 03:56:06.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, more than 500,000. Pagpalagay na 03:56:06.340 --> 03:56:09.940 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: lang po natin, 600. Covered po ba yan ng AMLA? 03:56:10.240 --> 03:56:10.780 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:56:10.980 --> 03:56:11.220 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. 03:56:13.830 --> 03:56:34.810 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So, i-report po ito ng bangko sa AMLC, tama po? Correct, sir. Now, if that money, if it's 600,000, if it earns interest by month's end, and it's credited as 600,100, for example, is that reported again as a covered transaction under the AMLC? I'm 03:56:34.810 --> 03:56:35.250 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: not really 03:56:35.250 --> 03:56:36.610 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: sure, sir. You're not sure? Okay. 03:56:39.300 --> 03:56:53.770 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: If final withholding tax is deducted and the amount is credited as 600,080, is that reported a third time as a covered transaction under AMLA? I 03:56:53.770 --> 03:56:54.670 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: don't think so, sir. 03:56:55.350 --> 03:57:12.110 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You're not sure? Okay. Now, in that scenario, yung 500,000 po kasi or ayon yung sa 500,000, 600,000, naging 3 times na po siya or around mga 1 million. 800,000 sa AMC reporting. 03:57:14.390 --> 03:57:35.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So in that scenario po, magiging around 12 million na po siya mahigit for the next year kahit na in reality ang base amount lang po is 600,000. My only question is this. In that scenario, after many years, magiging bloated na yung amount sa reporting. Tama po ba? 03:57:36.030 --> 03:57:36.770 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:57:37.070 --> 03:57:42.980 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Bloated. Okay. Are you aware if that Scenario of bloating happened in this case? 03:57:43.920 --> 03:57:48.680 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Sir, I do not know the facts of this case so that I cannot respond to that question. 03:57:49.100 --> 03:58:14.950 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Alright. Because as you mentioned a while ago, you do not have any personal knowledge of the bank transactions. Correct, sir. And we respect that. So, you also do not have personal knowledge dun sa 6 billion mahigit sa AMLA reports. If this is alleged, sorry, you do not have personal knowledge dun sa alleged 6 billion in the AMC reports, If this is actually bloated or not. Hindi rin nyo rin po mako-confirm yun. No 03:58:14.950 --> 03:58:15.370 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: knowledge. 03:58:16.030 --> 03:58:24.090 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: In other words, you cannot testify whether the AMLC reports reflect the true wealth of VP Sara, correct? 03:58:24.450 --> 03:58:25.730 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. Are 03:58:26.820 --> 03:58:40.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: you aware of the, just a few points on this, are you aware of the, that figure from the AMLC report is not actual cash balance across the accounts of VP Sara? 03:58:41.280 --> 03:58:42.340 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I have no knowledge. 03:58:42.520 --> 03:58:50.800 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Whether they are transaction tallies, covering both credits and debits, hindi niyo po masasagot lahat. We respect that. 03:58:52.970 --> 03:59:16.450 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Now, since you were asked about legal principles, let me just ask you, or at least test your, sorry po mama, just test your credibility po on legal knowledge. Anyway, these are matters that are related naman po to the impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Of 03:59:16.450 --> 03:59:17.910 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: course, that's under the Constitution. 03:59:18.310 --> 03:59:21.330 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And in impeachment, trial must be done by the Senate, correct? 03:59:21.550 --> 03:59:21.970 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 03:59:22.780 --> 03:59:25.020 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Pwede po ba mag-trial sa House of Representatives? 03:59:26.960 --> 03:59:34.960 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, I think so, sir, because for as long as it is the Senate itself that conducts the hearing, I believe so. 03:59:35.220 --> 03:59:40.080 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: So yung mini-trial, pwede po yun sa House? Mini-trial, pwede po ba sa House yun? 03:59:41.230 --> 03:59:42.690 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Mini-trial of what? 03:59:43.300 --> 03:59:45.400 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Of the case, of the impeachment case. 03:59:48.250 --> 03:59:56.190 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: If Your Honor, please may I request that the term mini-trial be explained to the witness? It is susceptible of many different interpretations. 03:59:56.950 --> 03:59:59.490 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: If she's aware, she can answer. 04:00:21.960 --> 04:00:27.980 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Pagka pinapunta po dun yung respondent, tapos pinagbawa lang po i-cross-examine yung mga witnesses, pwede po ba yun? 04:00:29.310 --> 04:00:36.670 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I'm not very familiar about the rules of the Congress, so I'm sorry I cannot answer that. But as a judge, 04:00:36.870 --> 04:00:42.740 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: do you think withholding the right to cross-examine is a violation of the law? 04:00:42.740 --> 04:00:43.420 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Of course, that's 04:00:43.420 --> 04:00:46.500 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: a violation of the constitutional right of an accused. 04:00:47.080 --> 04:00:48.020 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Of course, okay. 04:00:50.530 --> 04:01:04.190 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Let me direct your attention to Section 31, Canon 2. But before I ask you a question, let me first ask you, Not the prosecution's primary duty to convict. Tama ko ba? 04:01:04.920 --> 04:01:06.740 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, that's what the Supreme Court says. 04:01:08.620 --> 04:01:14.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, insofar as criminal case, I'm talking from the context of criminal law. 04:01:14.340 --> 04:01:14.860 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: As 04:01:14.860 --> 04:01:16.300 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: we've learned, 04:01:16.460 --> 04:01:17.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: as 04:01:17.670 --> 04:01:24.370 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: lawyers, according to the Supreme Court, the duty of the prosecutor is not to convict, but to see to it that justice is done. 04:01:24.750 --> 04:02:09.530 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I agree with you, Poa, 100%. In fact, I will read the entire provision. The primary duty of a public prosecutor is not to convict but to see that justice is done. Suppressing facts, concealing off, tampering with or destroying evidence, coaching a witness, or offering false testimony is cause for disciplinary action. The obligations of a public prosecutor shall also be imposed upon lawyers in the private practice who are authorized to prosecute under the direct supervision and control of the public prosecutor. To follow up on that, based on this po, it is clear po that the public prosecutor's primary duty is not to convict VP Sara but to see that justice is done. Tama po. 04:02:11.690 --> 04:02:24.640 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I will leave that to the judgment of the Senate Impeachment Court but as I've said earlier sir, insofar as criminal cases are concerned, That is mandatory. Sige 04:02:24.640 --> 04:02:35.040 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: po, gawin ko pong criminal. So, any witness po or evidence that will establish the innocence of the accused must never be suppressed or concealed, correct? Of course, 04:02:35.040 --> 04:02:35.160 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 04:02:35.520 --> 04:02:44.000 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Otherwise, that is violative of the rules and thus illegal, correct? Yes, sir. So hindi dapat gigil na gigil yung mga prosecutor sa pag-convict, tama? 04:02:44.730 --> 04:02:45.410 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:02:45.950 --> 04:02:46.470 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Just 04:02:46.790 --> 04:02:52.510 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: to take advantage of the fact that you're here also, VP Sara enjoys the presumption of innocence, correct? 04:02:52.900 --> 04:02:53.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Of course. 04:02:53.760 --> 04:03:12.300 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: This is guaranteed. I am still allowed to make an objection even if the witness has answered that is provided under the rules. If your honor, please, may I ask that the question first be repeated so that I can clearly state my argument. I'll just move on to a new question. 04:03:15.520 --> 04:03:18.120 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I'm sorry? I'll just move on to a new question. You 04:03:18.120 --> 04:03:20.320 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: are withdrawing your question? Is that the case? 04:03:20.360 --> 04:03:20.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Are 04:03:20.580 --> 04:03:21.100 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: you withdrawing 04:03:21.100 --> 04:03:21.720 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: the question, counsel? 04:03:24.050 --> 04:03:27.070 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: My question is about presumption of innocence, Your Honor. 04:03:27.910 --> 04:03:28.530 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Precisely, Your 04:03:28.530 --> 04:03:28.550 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Honor. 04:03:28.890 --> 04:03:37.290 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: That question is misleading because this is not a criminal case. There is no application of the presumption of innocence in this impeachment case. 04:03:37.970 --> 04:03:44.170 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Again, if she knows, counsel, you offered her as an expert. She may express her opinion or decline to do so if she knows. 04:03:44.670 --> 04:03:47.630 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I'll go back to my... You answered already, 04:03:47.790 --> 04:03:52.810 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: yes. She enjoys the presumption of innocence. Alright. And this is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, correct? 04:03:54.100 --> 04:03:56.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Presumption of innocence. And 04:03:56.400 --> 04:03:59.600 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: burden of proving her guilt is with the prosecution, correct? 04:03:59.960 --> 04:04:00.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:04:00.660 --> 04:04:06.840 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And if the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, VP Sara is entitled to an acquittal, correct? 04:04:07.060 --> 04:04:14.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, again, that will be up to the impeachment court to assess and evaluate the evidence and come up with their judgment. 04:04:14.480 --> 04:04:20.080 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: At any rate, conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the defense, correct? 04:04:20.440 --> 04:04:22.860 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Again, from the point of view of criminal law, yes. 04:04:23.490 --> 04:04:29.930 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: The prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense, correct? 04:04:30.050 --> 04:04:31.430 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, again, in criminal cases. 04:04:31.810 --> 04:04:36.430 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: The totality of evidence presented must support a conviction, correct? 04:04:38.280 --> 04:04:43.000 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Conviction beyond reasonable doubt, again, based on criminal cases. And 04:04:43.000 --> 04:04:51.060 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: courts must judge the guilt or innocence of the accused based on facts and not on mere conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions, correct? 04:04:51.340 --> 04:04:53.160 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. That's what the Supreme Court says. 04:04:54.040 --> 04:05:07.300 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Actually, ma'am, not just the Supreme Court. We lifted these from portions of your own decisions. Kaya po, nag-agree po kayo sa lahat. Tama po. Alright. My next question is this. Did you read the articles of impeachment in full? 04:05:07.620 --> 04:05:10.960 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Sir, honestly, I've not read even one article of impeachment. Okay 04:05:10.960 --> 04:05:15.600 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: lang po yan. I'll draw your attention to page 1 of the AOI where it states, and I quote, 04:05:19.370 --> 04:05:26.990 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: The very foundations of accountability upon which the Republic is built. Talking about VP Sara. If 04:05:26.990 --> 04:05:35.690 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: your honor, please. The witness already said she has not read the articles of impeachment and has no personal knowledge thereof. No question yet in the court. I'll 04:05:35.690 --> 04:05:35.950 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: wait for the question. 04:05:36.010 --> 04:05:36.770 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I'll wait for the 04:05:36.770 --> 04:05:37.030 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: question, 04:05:37.110 --> 04:05:50.100 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Honorable Chair. Yes, your honor. My only question po, ma'am, is dismantling the very foundations of accountability, is this specifically provided as a ground for impeachment? under the 04:05:50.100 --> 04:05:58.640 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Constitution. Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered and the witness has already stated that she has no personal knowledge of the matter being asked by the defense counsel. 04:05:58.640 --> 04:06:05.760 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Of this particular impeachment complaint, counsel, but I believe she was a political law reviewer. If she knows, counsel. 04:06:06.000 --> 04:06:12.960 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, if that is not included in the enumerated grounds for impeachment in the Constitution, then it's not. 04:06:13.260 --> 04:06:25.580 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Is this a crime po? And I quote, Dismantling the very foundations of accountability. Is this a crime specifically defined and punished under the RPC, for example? 04:06:26.060 --> 04:06:26.900 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: There is none, sir. 04:06:26.940 --> 04:06:33.780 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Is there any law that specifically penalizes dismantling the very foundations of accountability? May ganun po ba? 04:06:34.520 --> 04:06:35.280 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 04:06:35.440 --> 04:06:40.720 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: In other words, drama lang po ito on the part of the House of Representatives. Argumentative, Your Honor, please. 04:06:42.850 --> 04:07:02.870 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: In the AOI, it states also, and I quote, By her own hand, she has rendered herself an outcast to the Constitution. My question is this. Is rendering oneself an outcast to the Constitution specifically provided as a ground for impeachment? 04:07:03.390 --> 04:07:04.070 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: May 04:07:04.070 --> 04:07:05.450 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: ganun po ba kayong naalala? 04:07:05.690 --> 04:07:07.330 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I don't remember, sir. 04:07:07.530 --> 04:07:10.210 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Is this specifically defined and punished under any law? 04:07:10.610 --> 04:07:10.890 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No. 04:07:11.300 --> 04:07:11.780 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Just the 04:07:11.780 --> 04:07:15.580 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: last few questions, 04:07:16.860 --> 04:07:30.520 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Your Honor. So based on your legal expertise, ma'am, what did the Supreme Court say about the impeachment process being abused in the case po of Duterte versus House of Representatives? Can you recall po? 04:07:31.040 --> 04:07:31.780 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 04:07:32.800 --> 04:07:40.120 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: I'll refresh your memory po and then I'll ask last few questions. This was beautifully penned by Justice Leonen. 04:07:40.940 --> 04:07:41.740 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: To 04:07:43.820 --> 04:09:38.730 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: clarify further, when used properly, impeachment is a tool for accountability. When abused, it is a tool for political retribution. It is only by compliance with the constitutional process that the proper balance between accountability and the ability of the public officers covered by impeachment to discharge their responsibilities can be respected. Impeachment is not a chance to settle political scores. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have a responsibility to treat the impeachment process with seriousness, not as a chance to go after personalities or political opponents, but as a constitutional tool to address specific acts of misconduct. Allegations like corruption demand careful Evidence-based scrutiny. This process was never meant to be a stage for political theater or personal attacks. It is about determining whether a public official has committed actions that truly rise to the level of impeachable offenses as defined by the Constitution. When the focus shifts to the person rather than the alleged wrongdoing, the process loses its integrity. and impeachment risks becoming a blunt political weapon instead of a safeguard for public accountability. We reiterate, integrity is a constitutional imperative, but it applies to the impeachable officers as well as those involved in the constitutional process of impeaching and convicting for constitutionally provided offenses done in a constitutionally required manner. My only question, Justice, do you agree with this ruling of the Supreme Court? 04:09:38.950 --> 04:09:39.430 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Of course. 04:09:39.830 --> 04:09:42.370 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: And this ruling is binding upon us all, right? 04:09:42.610 --> 04:09:43.290 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Of course, sir. 04:09:43.490 --> 04:09:44.530 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: That will be all, Your Honor. 04:09:45.910 --> 04:09:50.110 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Counsel. Any redirect, Honorable Chell? 04:09:50.290 --> 04:09:54.090 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you. Yes, I have some questions if I may be allowed, Your Honor. 04:09:54.190 --> 04:09:56.430 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You may proceed, Counsel, with the ordered redirect. 04:09:58.230 --> 04:10:11.010 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Earlier, Madam Justice, you were asked about Crimes, presumption of innocence, burden of proof, reasonable doubt. Ano yung pong court ang may jurisdiction ng mga criminal offenses? 04:10:12.120 --> 04:10:15.740 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: It's the regular courts. 04:10:16.160 --> 04:10:27.150 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ibig po sabihin ninyo yung MTC or Metropolitan Municipal Trial Courts, RTC, Regional Trial Courts. They tried those kinds of criminal cases. 04:10:27.250 --> 04:10:27.770 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:10:28.250 --> 04:10:33.990 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: And you would agree that impeachment court has no jurisdiction over a criminal offense? 04:10:34.470 --> 04:10:39.130 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. As mentioned by the Supreme Court, it is sui generis. 04:10:39.390 --> 04:10:50.070 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: So, pag pinag-uusapan natin po dito yung mga batas na criminal, hindi po ang layunin ay ipakulong. Halimbawa yung respondent. 04:10:50.670 --> 04:10:51.410 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes sir. 04:10:51.570 --> 04:10:59.830 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Hindi rin po natin matatawag na accused ang respondent dahil yung salitang accused ay para po sa mga regular courts pag may criminal na offense. 04:11:00.290 --> 04:11:00.870 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes sir. 04:11:01.150 --> 04:11:12.930 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At ay sasabihin natin yung presumption of innocence kung sino man ang maghuhusga dyan ay nasa kamay ng trial court of law. Ibig sabihin hindi po impeachment court. 04:11:13.090 --> 04:11:13.570 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes sir. 04:11:13.710 --> 04:11:28.820 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Pati yung proof beyond reasonable doubt. Yun ay dapat i-apply sa mga regular courts but as far as the impeachment court is concerned, there's no requirement that they look for proof beyond reasonable doubt. 04:11:29.380 --> 04:11:30.040 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:11:30.460 --> 04:11:40.420 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At pati po, there's another criminal penalty which imposes a fine rather than imprisonment. The impeachment court would have no jurisdiction to impose such a fine. 04:11:40.980 --> 04:11:41.780 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:11:42.040 --> 04:11:59.650 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Ang pinag-uusapan lang po ng impeachment court ay Kung talagang fit o okay pa rin na maupo ang isang opisyal na ini-impeach. Yes, sir. Thank you. Familiar po ba kayo sa salitang obiter dictum o dikta? 04:11:59.850 --> 04:12:00.390 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:12:00.910 --> 04:12:02.370 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: It's a 04:12:02.880 --> 04:12:13.110 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: mere opinion. It's an opinion, by the way. It's not the ratio decidendi in the case. 04:12:13.850 --> 04:12:24.910 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Would you agree with me or would it be a fair statement that not everything that is written in a decision by the Supreme Court is part of the ratio decidendi? 04:12:24.990 --> 04:12:25.610 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Correct, sir. 04:12:25.810 --> 04:12:32.710 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: So meron din mga salita doon na obiter dictum, ibig sabihin as an aside lang po sinabi. 04:12:32.990 --> 04:12:33.990 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. And 04:12:33.990 --> 04:12:55.580 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: earlier you said that you were asked about the case of House of Representatives versus Duterte. But if I recall, you are not familiar with that case? No, sir. So hindi niyo ngayon malalaman kung yung mga ipinakita sa inyong mga salita kanina na galing doon kay Justice Leonen ay obiter dictum lang po o ratio decidendi? 04:12:56.040 --> 04:12:59.280 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Actually, I've not read the entire decision. 04:12:59.980 --> 04:13:01.080 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Thank you so much. 04:13:02.850 --> 04:13:19.780 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Just a few more questions, if I may. Yun pong, when we say that a person will be imprisoned. In other words, put to jail. The impeachment court has nothing at all to do with that, right? 04:13:20.160 --> 04:13:28.440 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. Because under the Constitution, only the penalty of removal from office. 04:13:30.220 --> 04:13:32.440 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: At disqualification. 04:13:32.920 --> 04:13:34.560 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Disqualification. 04:13:35.120 --> 04:13:46.230 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: Yes. Sana po, Justice, hindi kayo magnapagod. I'm so thankful for your presence here at sa inyong paglilingkod sa bayan. Wala na po akong tanong, Your Honor. 04:13:46.470 --> 04:13:48.030 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Re-cross, counsel. Just a 04:13:48.030 --> 04:13:49.750 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: few points, Your Honor. You may proceed. 04:13:51.300 --> 04:14:12.330 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: You mentioned that you have not read the ruling, the entire ruling in the case of Duterte versus House of Representatives. Yes, sir. So you cannot confirm whether ano yung parts na racial dissident yet, ano yung parts na obiter dictum. Tama po. Yes, sir. Yung term na conviction, ma'am, sa criminal cases lang po ba ginagamit yun? 04:14:13.000 --> 04:14:19.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, dito in impeachment trial, binabanggit din ng Constitution ang the word conviction, actually. 04:14:19.880 --> 04:14:25.980 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Precisely, ma'am. Kaya hindi naman, porki hindi ito criminal case, hindi na applicable yung ibang concepts, tama? 04:14:27.980 --> 04:14:32.840 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I will not, sorry, sir. I will not speculate. 04:14:33.080 --> 04:14:37.540 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: It's okay, ma'am. But, will you agree with me? 04:15:07.760 --> 04:15:08.320 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank 04:15:13.660 --> 04:15:15.200 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 04:15:18.890 --> 04:15:25.900 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Justice Tang, have you met or are you familiar with the name Conchita Carpio Morales? 04:15:26.320 --> 04:15:31.620 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. She was the former ombudsman and also a member of the 04:15:31.620 --> 04:15:32.300 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: Supreme 04:15:32.300 --> 04:15:32.760 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Court. 04:15:32.920 --> 04:15:35.560 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: She was an associate justice of the Supreme Court. 04:15:35.680 --> 04:15:36.920 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. And 04:15:36.920 --> 04:15:37.720 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: ombudsman. 04:15:37.980 --> 04:15:38.620 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:15:38.720 --> 04:15:48.100 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: And did you know that she testified here in the impeachment court during the Senate impeachment? Trial of Chief Justice Corona? 04:15:48.910 --> 04:15:49.790 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:15:50.030 --> 04:15:53.090 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: All right. Thank you. Thank you for your service. You're in good company. 04:15:53.960 --> 04:15:54.640 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Thank 04:15:54.640 --> 04:15:54.960 Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III: you, 04:15:55.000 --> 04:15:59.860 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge Sotto. Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo is recognized for his interjection. 04:16:10.300 --> 04:16:32.190 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I have a few quick questions for our witness, former Justice of the Sandigan Bayan. Ma'am, nag-volunteer po ba kayo sa pag-testify dito? Did you say like you're willing or bigla lang dumating isapina sa inyo? 04:16:32.410 --> 04:16:32.870 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 04:16:33.270 --> 04:16:34.710 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: So you did not volunteer? 04:16:34.790 --> 04:16:35.130 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir. 04:16:35.290 --> 04:16:40.050 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Alright. Anong reason po sa tingin ninyo na pinapunta kayo rito mag-testify? 04:16:40.890 --> 04:16:41.390 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: What 04:16:41.390 --> 04:16:41.930 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: do you think? 04:16:42.230 --> 04:16:51.830 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, sir, perhaps because of my experience in the nature of work while I was in government. 04:16:52.910 --> 04:16:56.270 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: You mean as Sandigan Bayan Justice, right? 04:16:56.490 --> 04:17:05.010 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. And also, during my stint in the office of the Solicitor General where I also handled the Ilgaten wealth cases, sir. 04:17:05.330 --> 04:17:16.010 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Do you teach right now sa law school? Kung kaya nakikita ninyo na valuable ang inyong inputs? No? You don't teach right now? 04:17:16.150 --> 04:17:22.350 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I do teach, sir, at the San Beda College of Law and the University of Santo Tomas. 04:17:22.760 --> 04:17:23.880 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Okay, that's what you do now. 04:17:24.180 --> 04:17:24.840 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:17:24.980 --> 04:17:51.840 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: All right. Ma'am, balikan natin. Unexplained wealth. May time limit po ba ito? Because I've been hearing, for example, yung isang mayor, kinasuhan po, ano po. Pero yung kanyang unexplained wealth, inong kagawad pa siya. He started as kagawad, became barangay captain, konsihal, vice mayor, mayor. May time limit ba yun after 15 years? 04:18:01.720 --> 04:18:03.080 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Under the 04:18:03.080 --> 04:18:10.000 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Constitution, the right of the state to recover unlawfully acquired wealth is imprescriptible. 04:18:10.780 --> 04:18:14.400 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Hindi nalilimita 04:18:14.400 --> 04:18:21.200 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: ang karapatan ng Estado na habulin itong mga illegally acquired wealth. There is no period of limitation. 04:18:22.310 --> 04:18:31.270 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Okay. Isa po akong katanungan, ano po mga evidentiary evidence po para masabi na unexplained ang isang kayamanan ng isang opisyal? 04:18:31.780 --> 04:18:33.960 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: How do you classify 04:18:33.960 --> 04:18:35.760 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: that? Sir, 04:18:35.960 --> 04:19:07.820 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: merong pamantayan ang Republic Act 1379 na sinasaad doon if a public official acquires during his incumbency properties or sizable amount of properties that are manifestly disproportionate to his salary, lawful income, or income from legitimately acquired properties, they shall be presumed prima facie as unlawfully acquired wealth. 04:19:22.280 --> 04:19:31.240 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: If there are similar retired justices officials to testify in this court, must we still afford them respect because of their service? 04:19:48.190 --> 04:19:55.950 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: That person testifying there because she or he was a former or retired justice, must we accord them that? 04:19:57.110 --> 04:20:26.780 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Any and all witnesses, Senator-Judge Irwin, should be accorded respect not only by the court but also by counsel for the parties, whether he or she is a retired justice. However, if I understand where you're leading towards, the counsels, especially opposing counsel, have the right and leeway. To ask questions of a witness, even if he or she is a retired justice, in order to test the witness's credibility and or reliability. 04:20:28.370 --> 04:20:38.530 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: But yung saying na this witness is biased in all, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that proper? I mean, can we use that here? To 04:20:38.530 --> 04:20:47.350 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: ask, yes. To ask, but she was not accused of being... So, she was asked, she was asked, Senator-Judge. Thank 04:20:47.350 --> 04:20:49.210 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: you, Mr. Presiding Officer. That's all for me. 04:20:49.810 --> 04:20:50.430 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you. 04:20:52.090 --> 04:20:54.790 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Next would be Senator-Judge Villanueva. 04:20:57.060 --> 04:21:06.130 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thereafter, the Senate President, then Senator-Judge Pangilinan, then Senator-Judge Riza. And then Senator-Judge Lacson. 04:21:06.270 --> 04:21:34.910 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer and Senate President. One question and I'd like to reiterate my earlier question with regard to lumping of cash doon po sa other assets. And the defense panel made mention na parang wala pong violation. Would you still consider yung binanggit niyo kanina that there is indeed a violation, it constitutes a violation pagka nilampo yung cash sa other assets, ma'am? 04:21:35.960 --> 04:21:47.620 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Sir, I did not say that there is a violation. What I said is there is a specific or a categorical directive in the law that this must be itemized. 04:21:48.400 --> 04:21:50.960 Sen. Joel Villanueva: May we know what law are you talking about, ma'am? 04:21:51.720 --> 04:21:57.860 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: I think it's Section 8A, Paragraph C of Republic Act No. 04:21:59.320 --> 04:21:59.800 Sen. Joel Villanueva: 6713. 04:22:00.900 --> 04:22:01.380 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Because 04:22:01.380 --> 04:22:16.690 Sen. Joel Villanueva: I was looking at 6713 and tried looking at it, ma'am. I couldn't find the specific provision there. While looking at the 2025 omnibus guidelines, section 36, nakita 04:22:18.770 --> 04:22:42.630 Sen. Joel Villanueva: ko po doon sa omnibus rules on SAL-IN issued by CSC, cash declaration, the amount of money cash in bank to be declared should be the last balance. May ABC po dito. Hindi ko nababanggitin lahat kasi mauubos yung time ko. Gusto ko lang humalaman, madam, because this was issued in 2025. 04:22:44.440 --> 04:23:06.370 Sen. Joel Villanueva: I was looking, trying to look for the salin of the Vice President in 2026. Pero wala din hong, looks like walang changes, Mr. President, presiding officer. And it would not fall dun sa binabanggit niyo kanina na repeated kasi kung 2026. Wala po. So, hihintayin ba in 2027? So, I just wanted to be clarified, ma'am, on this matter. 04:23:06.750 --> 04:23:11.270 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. This is found in, as I've said, sir, Section 8... 04:23:11.270 --> 04:23:12.030 Sen. Joel Villanueva: 6713. 04:23:12.970 --> 04:23:24.670 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: A... C of 6713. 6713, sir, is a law. It cannot be modified or amended by a regulation that is issued by the Civil Service Commission. 04:23:25.090 --> 04:23:31.320 Sen. Joel Villanueva: And the defense made... If I can ask the... The defense on this matter? 04:23:32.150 --> 04:23:32.930 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Yes, Your 04:23:32.930 --> 04:23:36.670 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Honor. So you disagree that it is not prohibited? 04:23:38.380 --> 04:23:58.240 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: That is our position, Your Honor, that the law does not provide any prohibition. And again, with all due respect to Justice Tang again, that paragraph, see, it does not provide for a specific line disclosure for cash. 04:23:58.860 --> 04:24:34.330 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Yes, I also wanted to point out in 6713 MNAM all other assets hindi po sinabi na tanggalin or ihiwalay yung cash. But it's very clear for me dito sa omnibus guidelines section 36 issued by the Civil Service Commission. So I'll give the floor also to the prosecution. Is this your position? Dito lang po ba binabase yung ating position that there's indeed It constitutes a violation pagka yung pong cash ay nilalamp lang o itinatago doon po sa other assets, sir. 04:24:34.650 --> 04:24:40.730 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: It's our position, Your Honor, that that should be itemized and separate from the other assets. 04:24:41.030 --> 04:24:47.950 Sen. Joel Villanueva: Despite this was, it came up 2025 po, itong guidelines po na ito. 04:24:48.130 --> 04:24:58.310 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: As I understand those guidelines, Your Honor, they simply Put into action or put into the guidelines what has already been a practice and a policy by the government. 04:24:58.610 --> 04:25:01.810 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: You mean they put it into writing? Yes. Thank 04:25:01.810 --> 04:25:02.030 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: you very 04:25:02.030 --> 04:25:15.570 Sen. Joel Villanueva: much. That gives a clearer picture now on this representation to uprise the evidence being presented here in court. Thank you very much, counsels. Thank you, Madam Guitas. Thank you, Senator 04:25:15.570 --> 04:25:20.510 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: -Judge Villanueva. The Senate President is recognized. You have two minutes, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. 04:25:21.690 --> 04:25:30.930 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Mr. Presiding Officer, Madam Justice, kailangan po ba i-declare sa SAL-N yung ari-arian po ng asawa? 04:25:32.120 --> 04:25:59.170 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. But there is a qualification to that as I've mentioned earlier, sir. Kasi may bagong Supreme Court decision in the case of Abid Babano versus Executive Secretary. Kapag yung mag-asawa came up with an agreement of a complete separation of property before their marriage, Yung government official na yun, hindi niya kailangang i-declare sa kanyang asset yung assets ng kanyang asawa. 04:25:59.640 --> 04:26:01.120 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Pag wala ho yun, 04:26:01.180 --> 04:26:02.180 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: kailangang 04:26:02.180 --> 04:26:03.640 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: i-declare ho? 04:26:03.740 --> 04:26:04.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:26:05.740 --> 04:26:08.760 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Ari-arian ibig sabihin? All 04:26:08.760 --> 04:26:09.660 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: assets, sir. All 04:26:09.660 --> 04:26:10.160 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: assets ho. 04:26:10.220 --> 04:26:10.700 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: All assets. 04:26:11.020 --> 04:26:13.220 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Property? Cash? 04:26:13.580 --> 04:26:14.400 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:26:14.700 --> 04:26:15.340 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Negosyo? 04:26:15.540 --> 04:26:16.380 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:26:18.670 --> 04:26:19.870 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Sasakyan, etc.? 04:26:19.870 --> 04:26:20.470 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:26:20.570 --> 04:26:25.450 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: So lahat po nung ari-arian nung asawa, kailangan rin po nasa SAL-N including cash? 04:26:25.770 --> 04:26:26.270 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:26:26.470 --> 04:26:26.710 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Okay. 04:26:30.960 --> 04:26:40.420 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Pag hindi po ito dineclare nung asawa sa SAL-N, sino po ang pwede pong mapinalize? 04:26:41.800 --> 04:26:44.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Only the public official, sir. 04:26:45.150 --> 04:26:49.990 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Yung public official po ang may pipinalize kahit na asawa niya po yun hindi nag-declare? 04:26:50.990 --> 04:27:03.830 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, but it's only the government official, sir, who is required to file a SAL-IN. And that public official is required to include the assets of his or her spouse. Correct. 04:27:04.010 --> 04:27:08.430 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: So, dapat alam niya lahat nung ari-arian, cash, at etc. nung asawa? 04:27:08.530 --> 04:27:09.730 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Pero 04:27:09.730 --> 04:27:17.390 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: paano kung hindi niya, let's say, hindi na-declare? May bank account ng asawa na hindi na-declare? 04:27:18.280 --> 04:27:37.520 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, kung hindi alam ng government official yung existing bank accounts ng kanyang asawa, I think there is one case where the Supreme Court accepted the explanation of the public official because how could he have declared that money which was unknown to him? 04:27:39.410 --> 04:27:40.910 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: At acceptable ho yun? 04:27:41.050 --> 04:27:45.830 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes sir, because walang intentional concealment dyan. 04:27:46.380 --> 04:27:58.560 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Kung kung let's say sina Japong hindi i-declare, pwede po bang matanggal yung public official sa pwesto niya dahil hindi din-declare yung ari-arian ng asawa? 04:27:59.120 --> 04:28:17.110 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Under RA 3019 Section 8, provided but after due proceedings, ma-establish nga na there was unlawful acquisition of unexplained wealth, pwede po yung maging In 04:28:17.110 --> 04:28:25.430 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: short, even though sa asawa po yung non-declaration, pati yung public official ang pwedeng matanggal sa pwesto. 04:28:25.510 --> 04:28:56.080 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Basta, again, doon sa kaso po ng Rabusa versus Republic, kailan may pakita din nung asawa ng official na he or she was able to legitimately acquire those properties. Kung hindi niya may pakita, na wala siyang kakayanan financially to acquire those assets at saka yung ownership ng assets na yun ay traceable doon sa public official then that becomes the property of the public official. 04:28:56.700 --> 04:29:09.150 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Kasama na rin yung negosyo ng asawa. Let's say may negosyo ng asawa hindi din-declare doon ng public official so lahat po ng mga transactions 04:29:12.500 --> 04:29:15.520 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: related to doon sa negosyo can affect the public official. 04:29:15.880 --> 04:29:27.920 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Again, provided that the acquisition of those assets are traceable, yung ownership nun are traceable to the public official. 04:29:28.360 --> 04:29:28.680 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: Thank 04:29:28.680 --> 04:29:29.860 Sen. Sherwin T. Gatchalian: you. Thank you, Mr. President. 04:29:30.540 --> 04:29:44.630 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Salamat po sa payo niyo, Justice Tang. Kung sakaling dumating man po yung panahon yun, KSP, alam na po niya kung paano niya idedeklara sa kanyang SAL-N. Yung asset ng kanyang mapapangasawa. 04:29:46.490 --> 04:29:52.750 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge Pangilinan is recognized for your intervention. You have two minutes, sir. 04:29:57.360 --> 04:30:29.220 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mayroong alam si Senate President na hindi natin alam tungkol sa mga plano niyang pag-aasawa. Basis sa mga katanungan. Just one or two questions, Justice. Earlier, your testimony was being objected to and one of the grounds was Rule 129. Is that correct? Yes. And the ground being, or Rule 29, stating that your testimony hindi na kailangan kasi dapat judicial notice na. Hindi po ba? 04:30:29.450 --> 04:30:29.650 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, 04:30:29.750 --> 04:30:43.810 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: sir. Bilang Korte. But you also mentioned sa testimony niyo kadina, this refers, Rule 129 refers to the judiciary primarily. Yes, 04:30:43.810 --> 04:30:43.990 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 04:30:44.190 --> 04:31:27.580 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: It is, the rules of court is suppletory to the impeachment court. And the reason, I believe, it is for the courts because the court is presided over by a lawyer. Yes. A judge. Yes. Who is Learned in the law. In the case of the Senate Impeachment Court, we're only five lawyers here out of 24 senators. And therefore, while you can insist that the judge in the judiciary should take judicial notice of the laws, etc., that is not the case for the Impeachment Court. Would you agree to that? 04:31:27.820 --> 04:31:28.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:31:28.820 --> 04:31:48.160 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: Yes, and therefore, invoking Rule 129 of the Rules of Court is acceptable and necessary when it comes to the judiciary and the courts, but not so in the impeachment court. 04:31:48.540 --> 04:31:49.220 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:31:49.420 --> 04:31:52.260 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: Okay. No other question, Mr. 04:31:52.400 --> 04:31:52.700 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Fajarda? 04:31:52.700 --> 04:31:53.000 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: Thank you, 04:31:53.000 --> 04:31:55.780 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge Pangilinan. Senator-Judge Hontiveros is recognized. 04:31:57.580 --> 04:31:58.020 Sen. Francis Pangilinan: Manifestation, 04:31:58.040 --> 04:32:00.800 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Your Honor. Yes, Attorney Mark, what is your manifestation? 04:32:01.180 --> 04:32:01.200 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: Just 04:32:01.200 --> 04:32:09.520 Atty. Mark C. Vinluan: for the record, Your Honor, the prosecution also invoked that same ruling on judicial notice in other matters. Just for the record, Your Honor. Just a counter 04:32:09.520 --> 04:32:14.220 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: -manifestation? Yes, Honorable Chell. That was in a totally different context. 04:32:14.820 --> 04:32:21.320 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Noted with respect to the comments of both parties. The Honorable Hontiveros is recognized. You may proceed, ma'am. You have two minutes. 04:32:24.840 --> 04:32:43.850 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Magandang hapon muli, Madam Justice. Good afternoon, ma'am. Isa na lang pong follow-up question mula sa akin. Sinabi niyo rin po kanina na ang pagtanggal sa isang opisyal mula sa kanyang posisyon ay maaaring isang resulta 04:32:43.850 --> 04:33:00.540 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: ng disisyon ng impeachment court. Meron din po bang sinasabi sa Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act na pwedeng maging gabay? Kaugnay ng unexplained wealth at pagtanggal sa posisyon. 04:33:01.560 --> 04:33:12.440 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, under the anti-graft law, ma'am, it pertains exclusively to criminal and civil cases or civil cases. 04:33:17.160 --> 04:33:24.740 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Except for those impeachable officers, they can be removed through proper administrative proceedings. 04:33:33.640 --> 04:33:42.880 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: So wala pong guidance or advice na pwedeng makuha doon kaugnay ng proseso dito sa impeachment court? Wala 04:33:42.880 --> 04:33:43.100 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: po. 04:33:45.380 --> 04:33:48.940 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: Salamat po, Justice. Salamat po, Presiding Officer. 04:33:49.280 --> 04:33:55.200 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Thank you, Senator-Judge Hontiveros. Senator-Judge Lacson, you are recognized, sir. You may proceed when you're ready. You have two minutes, sir. 04:33:55.400 --> 04:34:15.530 Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I just couldn't help myself. Nais ko lang gumawa ng short manifestation. Nais kong bigyan ng pagpupugay at paghanga yung ating butihing justice for her patience, composure, and forbearance. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank 04:34:15.530 --> 04:34:15.750 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: you. 04:34:15.870 --> 04:34:17.230 Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson: Well deserved indeed, 04:34:18.630 --> 04:34:33.000 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator-Judge Lacson. Before I recognize Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo for his third round, may I recognize Senator-Judge Cayetano Allen to avail of his first round to interject. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes when you're ready. 04:34:34.830 --> 04:34:35.190 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Good 04:34:35.190 --> 04:34:53.430 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: afternoon, Mr. President, Officer, Senate President, dear colleagues. Ma'am, magandang hapon po. Good afternoon, sir. Let me start out by thanking you for your, I want to say years lang, hindi naman halta sa age pero sa itsura, but decades of outstanding service to our nation. Thank you, ma'am. 04:34:53.750 --> 04:34:54.130 Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson: Thank you. 04:34:54.450 --> 04:35:04.050 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Ma'am, how important is an impartial tribunal to get accountability from public officials? 04:35:06.950 --> 04:35:15.270 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, the impartiality of a court will largely impact on the proper dispensation of justice. 04:35:16.210 --> 04:35:38.810 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: So is it correct to say that pag hindi impartial yung court, naririsk na hindi magkaroon ng accountability kasi pwedeng ma-overturn sa appeal or people might not accept the judgment or... In other words, ma'am, the impartiality of any tribunal is essential. Would you agree with that? 04:35:38.950 --> 04:35:39.390 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:35:39.530 --> 04:35:43.600 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: So, part of impartiality is independence. 04:35:44.500 --> 04:35:45.300 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:35:45.440 --> 04:35:52.560 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: So, in our Constitution, the judiciary is independent from the executive and from the legislative, right? 04:35:52.780 --> 04:35:53.360 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:35:53.520 --> 04:35:58.500 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: But in reality, there is dependence, codependence, as well as independence. 04:35:59.300 --> 04:36:00.120 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. 04:36:00.280 --> 04:36:03.850 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: And in reality, there can be pressures. 04:36:05.740 --> 04:36:07.940 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, that may happen, sir. 04:36:08.120 --> 04:36:42.860 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Yes. And in fact, the Supreme Court has a line of cases where it did happen. Ibig sabihin, ma'am, your testimony is important because ang naririnig lang ng law students, mga legal limonaries, yung mga nababasa lang. Pero maraming hindi nababasa. Maraming nangyayaring totoo. At napaka-importante talaga na impartial yung tribunal. Tama, ma'am? Yes, sir. Okay. So what about changing the rules midstream? Would that affect holding an official accountable? 04:36:46.740 --> 04:36:54.050 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, I will answer. Sir, may I answer your question? Sure. In any way you 04:36:54.050 --> 04:36:55.970 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: want, ma'am. In any way you want. I don't 04:36:55.970 --> 04:37:18.040 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: want to put you in a spot but this impeachment court's decision and how we conduct ourselves And whether we follow the rules or not will determine our destiny not only in the next 2 years, 10 years, maybe in the next 40 years. That's why these are very important questions. But answer any way you want, ma'am. 04:37:18.080 --> 04:37:25.480 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Yes, sir. Under criminal law, especially in prosecution of cases, the rules of evidence cannot be changed. 04:37:28.110 --> 04:37:28.630 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Like 04:37:28.630 --> 04:37:32.350 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: sa Sandigan Bayan, ma'am, tatlo kayo at one time nag-hear ng case 04:37:32.350 --> 04:37:34.130 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: ng mama. Then ano yung rules? 04:37:34.590 --> 04:37:37.890 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: All three of you have to agree. I'll just finish this line of questions. 04:37:38.050 --> 04:37:48.330 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: The present rules, the internal rules of the Sandigan Bayan, as of now, a majority of two is sufficient to render valid judgment. So 04:37:48.330 --> 04:37:55.230 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: kung gusto talagang makonvict, biglang ibahin yung rule, isa na lang out of three, would that give justice? 04:37:55.770 --> 04:37:57.490 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, sir, and that is not allowed. 04:37:57.790 --> 04:38:00.070 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Okay. Sa inyo? Sa amin baka? 04:38:20.650 --> 04:38:28.450 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Kasi may tanong siya na nagulat lahat. Ang tanong niya, writ of amparo. And since your name is Amparo ma'am. 04:38:30.470 --> 04:38:38.640 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Can you issue a writ of amparo to the Senator-Judges here who are being intimidated? Don't answer that question. It's a... 04:38:38.640 --> 04:38:40.000 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Kindly wind up, attorney. 04:38:40.660 --> 04:38:41.180 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Senator 04:38:41.180 --> 04:38:42.120 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: -Judge... 04:38:42.120 --> 04:39:11.430 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: Again, ma'am, I'll end the way I started. Thank you for your service and we hope that the Senate can do its part in strengthening the Sandigan Bayan, the judiciary, and to support. Each and every judge that they will remain independent and true to their oath of blindly following the Constitution, our laws, and dispensing justice. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank 04:39:11.430 --> 04:39:11.510 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: you, sir. 04:39:12.230 --> 04:39:20.770 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Senator Pia Cayetano, again to avail of round two before Senator Erwin's round three. You have two minutes, ma'am. 04:39:20.970 --> 04:39:48.760 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Thank you. I'd also like to express my gratitude to the justice, not just for appearing today, but for your years of service. Talagang your whole career was dedicated. Thank you for that. And then fun fact for everyone, the writ of amparo was a question in my bar examinations. And at that time... I think it was only mentioned one in some very old case so I think yung Bartop-Natcher lang yata yung nakasagot ng question na yun. And thanks to the... 04:39:50.780 --> 04:40:20.210 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: The inclusion, then now everybody knows, well at least every lawyer knows what the rate of comparison, but believe me, none of us knew and I thought I failed the bar because of that question. On that note, I have a very simple follow-up question. Ako naman wala akong balak magtanong but my colleagues asked very interesting questions regarding impartial trial. What about, ma'am, threats, intimidations, and pressures to judges? Are those allowed to have an impartial tribunal? 04:40:20.870 --> 04:40:22.190 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, ma'am. 04:40:22.910 --> 04:40:39.510 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: Have you ever encountered anything, not you personally, but situations similar to that that judges, whether in Sandigan or because of your profession, have received in public such threats and intimidations? 04:40:40.550 --> 04:40:46.910 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: No, ma'am. Not in relation to pending cases before the Sandigan buy-in. I'm happy 04:40:46.910 --> 04:40:48.770 Sen. Pia S. Cayetano: for you kasi kami ho meron. Thank you. 04:40:49.610 --> 04:41:06.850 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: I think the Rito Famparo question in the bar was counted in favor of all the examinees at that time, if I remember correctly, Senator-Judge Pia. Ito sa bonus point already, given the difficulty of the question asked, if I remember correctly. Senator-Judge Irwin, tool for his recognition. 04:41:12.630 --> 04:41:21.010 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: One last quick question, Madam Witness. Based on your experience as a judge po, hukom, 04:41:24.530 --> 04:41:58.440 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Magistrado, can you make a ruling on a case presented before you or in your court by simply listening to the testimonies or testimony of a witness and the questions by the counsels? Can you make a ruling and say na? Okay, this person is guilty or not? That's not possible or is it possible? 04:41:59.530 --> 04:42:08.770 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Well, if the testimonial evidence is credible and a judgment can be rendered on the basis thereof, that can suffice, sir. 04:42:08.970 --> 04:42:21.560 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: But you might still need documentations, right ma'am? Or you just merely, or will you wait for documents to prove na there's a case by the prosecution or by the defense? 04:42:22.860 --> 04:42:30.720 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Sir, that will depend on whether there is a need for presentation of documentary evidence because evidence is either testimonial or documentary. 04:42:31.140 --> 04:42:49.220 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Exactly, but what I mean to say is like documents, ma'am. Documentations. Or sapat na ang testimonya para to say na conclude na itong... Taon na ito ay guilty or you might still need as a judge ika nga ng documents to be presented before the court? 04:42:49.400 --> 04:42:54.560 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: Sir, that would really depend on the nature of the case presented before the court. 04:42:55.970 --> 04:42:58.590 Sen. Erwin Tulfo: Alright, thank you po Madam Witness. Thank you 04:42:58.590 --> 04:42:58.750 Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang: sir. 04:43:00.530 --> 04:43:26.300 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: There being no other Senator-Judge who wishes to make interventions, Justice Tang, maraming salamat po sa inyong panahon, sa inyong oras, sa inyong pasensya. At sa inyong pagsagot sa mga katanungan mula sa magkabilang panig ng impeachment complaint na nakabimbin ngayon sa Senado bilang isang impeachment court. Maraming salamat po at magandang hapon sa inyo ma'am. Thank you for your cooperation and thank you ma'am for your service. You were excused ma'am. 04:43:35.630 --> 04:43:40.710 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Just some administrative matters. According to the Senate President, we'll call session at 3.15. 04:43:44.230 --> 04:44:19.540 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: For the information of the parties and the public, the Court formally announces that as discussed during the trial of September 10, 2026, it has secured the participation of the following legal luminaries as amici curiae on the meaning of all members under Article 11, Section 3 of the Constitution as raised by Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo, namely, Retired Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Retired Chief Justice Renato S. Puno, Retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., and Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Ascuna. 04:44:22.180 --> 04:44:48.540 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Retired Chief Justice Panganiban and Puno and Retired Associate Justice Ascuna shall personally appear before the Court on September 16, 2026. Meanwhile, Retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. shall submit his views through a legal memorandum which shall be formally entered into the records in lieu of his personal appearance given that he is recuperating from 04:44:48.540 --> 04:44:50.920 Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: a procedure. 04:44:52.120 --> 04:46:32.140 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: The Court is also in receipt of a memorandum position paper from Father Ranillo C. Aquino, Dean of the San Pedro University School of Law and pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Clerk of Courts Advisory dated 9 September 2026 which provides that The Court may, in its discretion and upon prior leave, receive and consider position papers from non-parties who possess demonstrated expertise on the foregoing issues including members of the academe, legal scholars, and other qualified experts. The Court along these lines shall consider the points raised of Father Aquino and shall furnish the Senator-Judges as well as the parties with a copy of the same. Now, as to the request for extension by PNB and Union Bank of the Philippines in regard to the subpoenas issued by the Court finding merit in the extension of time being requested, the same is partially granted. PNB and Union Bank are directed to submit the remaining documents on Thursday, September 17, 2026, with the reminder that this period is non-extendable. And one final reminder on the request for admission by the counsel for the prosecution and or the panel of prosecutors for the respondent. The deadline for submitting your comment on this 104 request for admission is on September 23. Just a reminder, counsel, so that it's on the record. Yes, anything else the parties would want to add before we adjourn? I see the Honorable Redon. 04:46:35.870 --> 04:46:38.730 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Indicating that they have nothing to add. Atty. Poa? 04:46:38.850 --> 04:46:39.990 Rep. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno: None from the end of the 04:46:39.990 --> 04:46:40.770 Sen. Risa Hontiveros: defense. So 04:46:40.770 --> 04:46:42.630 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: who is your witness tomorrow, Hon. 04:46:42.870 --> 04:46:43.470 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Ridon? 04:46:43.470 --> 04:46:50.770 Rep. Terry L. Ridon: We are ready to present Atty. Karen Batu of the Office of the Ombudsman and Atty. Gerardo Del Rosario of the SEC. 04:46:51.170 --> 04:47:05.530 Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero: Okay. So we shall have those two witnesses tomorrow. There being no other matters to be taken up by the court, trial is adjourned until tomorrow, September 15, at 10 a.m. In the morning.