September 14, 2026

President, the Presiding Officer, and Senator-Judges of the Impeachment Court.

The

Sgt.

at Arms is directed to make a proclamation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With 17 Senator-Judges present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum.

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.

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.

The Clerk of Court will please call the case before the impeachment court.

Case number 004-2026 in the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

Appearances for the parties.

Good morning, Your Honors.

For the prosecution, Your Honor, we are ready.

Good morning, Your Honor. Mark C. Vinluan for the Vice President. Same appearance for the defense.

Call your witness, Honorable 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.

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.

Nonetheless, Your Honor, this is just for the guidance of the Honorable Senator-Judges.

We'll allow it, counsel, as long as no conclusions of fact or law are made. Honorable Luistro, you are duly advised.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Bahagi din po yan na magiging ruling ng Korte miya-miya bago matapos ang trial sa araw na ito.

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.

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

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

the third witness, right? Because the second witness will be the witness from the Office of the Ombudsman.

Tama po. We

can. We can excuse the third witness. I believe we won't reach that witness anyway for today.

Marami salamat po, Your Honor. At this point, we are giving the floor to our co-head of Article 2, Congressman Chel Diokno. Marami

salamat po. Thank you, Honorable Ridon. The Honorable Diokno, Attorney Chell, you're recognized, sir. Kindly call your witness, Attorney Chell.

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

Court through the OSAA is directed to kindly assist. Former Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to the witness stand.

Good morning, ma'am. Before you sit down, ma'am, the clerk is directed to administer the oath.

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.

I do.

Thank you

very much, ma'am. Your witness, Attorney 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.

Una.

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?

Pwede bang magnegosyo ang bisepresidente o presidente habang sila ay nasa pwesto?

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?

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.

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.

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,

Your Honor. Again, this is already a speech on the part of a representative, Your Honor. It's highly improper. I'm about to

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

object, Your Honor.

I'm about to finish, if Your Honor's please. The

continuing objection is noted. I'll kindly wind up, counsel. Attorney H.L.

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.

Attorney Mark, comment.

Comments, Your Honor. This is quite lengthy, so we beg the court's indulgence.

I'll give you latitude as well, counsel.

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.

May I be allowed to respond? Oh, I'm

sorry.

Before the Chair recognizes Attorney Chell to respond, what is the pleasure of Senator-Judge Raffy 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.

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?

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.

Thank you for that clarification. And thank you for Mr. Fridas, Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Kindly hold off, Attorney Mark. Senator-Judge, Amy Marcos is recognized. What is your pleasure, ma'am?

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?

It's a question to the prosecution po.

Atty. Chel?

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.

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?

She will, if I may, if you're honest, please.

Because if it's about the Constitution and accountability, palagay ko, alam naman ng mga juez yan. Mas lalong alam

ng publiko. Kung saka-sakali opinion lamang yan, edi nag-prescon. At kung amicus curiae, balik na lang sa miyerkoles.

The

Honorable Diokno may respond.

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.

Yes, Presiding Judge, please.

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.

We have not yet done that. Yes.

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.

May I make one last question, please?

Yes,

please. Yes, the prosecution has asserted that the witness or the proposed witness is a disinterested party. Is that correct?

Yes, Your Honor.

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?

May I be allowed to answer? Honorable

Diokno may respond with the indulgence of Senator-Judge Sotto just to complete the interjection of Senator-Judge Aimee.

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.

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.

Bawal ba yun? May pera ka sa bangko?

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.

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

you. Thank you, Senator-Judge Sotto, duly noted. Senator-Judge Hontiveros, what is your pleasure, ma'am?

Maikling manifestation lamang po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Salamat po. Paraphrasing yung ilan sa mga tanong ko sana sa witness na ito.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

And she said that, and I don't want to misquote her, so I'll just read my notes, Your Honor.

May we know the, I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honor, may I just know the citation of the case? We will

provide that. That's

what he's checking on our counsel.

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.

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.

One

last rejoinder, Your Honor.

Final rebuttal or sir rebuttal, Atty. Mark. Then the chair will make a ruling.

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.

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?

The latter, Mr. Presiding Officer.

So walang specifics tungkol sa kaso?

Wala po.

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?

Yes, Your Honor.

And that is clear, counsel?

Yes, Your Honor.

Chair will now make a ruling. Sorry, the counsels for the parties raised several points.

Justice Tang being a surprise witness.

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.

2.

Judicial notice. Indeed, we take judicial notice mandatorily of the laws but not what the law means in a specific or particular case. 3.

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

Verified vocabulary.

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.

Your Honor, we will submit to the ruling of this court and we register a continuing objection to the presentation of this witness.

So noted. Your witness, attorney Chell, you may proceed when you're ready with this witness. Yes,

presiding judge. I'm

sorry, yes, Senator-Judge Aimee, my apologies.

Yes,

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.

Thank you, Senator Judge Marcos. Duly noted. Attorney Chell, the Honorable Chell, your witness.

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?

So recognized and on the part of the respondent as well, whoever they may assign as assisting counsel in relation to this witness.

May I also seek the court's permission for the witness, if necessary, to refer to her notes on the stand?

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.

May I proceed if your honor please?

You may proceed counsel.

For the record madam witness, kindly state your name, civil status, and profession.

I'm Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, married and retired presiding justice of the Sandigan Bayan.

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?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Simulan po natin yung ating huntahan sa inyong credentials. Justice, ano po yung inyong highest educational attainment?

Bachelor of Laws and then later on, kinonvert into JD.

Thank you. Saan po kayo nag-aaral ng law?

I finished law at the San Beda College.

Kailan po kayo natapos ng pag-aaral ng law?

I finished in 1979.

At kailan naman po kayo nag-bar exam?

I became a lawyer in 1980.

Ibig sabihin nag-bar

kayo noong 1979? I

took the bar exams in 1979 and took my oath as a lawyer in 1980.

Thank you, madam. Ano po yung unan niyong trabaho bilang abogado?

After passing the bar, I joined the Supreme Court as judicial assistant where I stayed there for two years.

Pagkatapos po noon ay saan naman kayo tumuloy sa pagtatrabaho?

I moved to the office of the Solicitor General as a trial attorney.

May I know just very briefly what a trial attorney does at the OSG?

Well, a trial attorney litigates. He or she goes to court, prepares pleading.

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?

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.

Assistant Solicitor General. Ang pinakamataas po ng opisyal sa Solicitor General's office ay ang Solicitor General, hindi po ba?

Tama po.

At yung Assistant Solicitor General, saan po siya sa ranking po ng opisina?

He is the Chief of Office po.

The Solicitor General or the Assistant?

No, the Solicitor General.

How about the Assistant Solicitor General?

Directly below the Solicitor General are the Assistant Solicitors General.

So, ibig sabihin na number two po ang mga Assistant Solicitors General.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Hanggang kailan po kayo naglingkod sa Office of the Solicitor General?

I served the Office of the Solicitor General for almost 31 years.

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?

More than a thousand cases, maybe.

Bakit po hanggang 2012 lang kayo naglingkod sa Office of the Solicitor General?

I was appointed as Associate Justice of the Sandigan Bayan.

Sa Supreme Court po meron mga justice, associate justice at meron din isang chief justice. Sa Sandigan Bayan po ba ganun din?

Wala po. Ang meron sa amin ay presiding justice.

Para po sa kaalaman ng lahat, ano po yung pagkaiba ng justice ng Sandigan Bayan at presiding justice?

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.

Mayroon pa ba kayong na-appoint din po ba kayo sa yung sinasabi po ninyong first among equals?

Yes, sir.

Kailan po kayo na-appoint bilang presiding justice ng Sandigan Bayan?

2013.

At hanggang kailan po kayo naglingkod bilang PJ?

Until November 8, 2024.

Why was it only until 2024 that you served in the court?

I retired, sir.

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?

Tama po.

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?

Yes, sir. I teach law in the San Beda. University as well as the University of Santo Tomas.

Ano pong subject o subjects ang itinuturo ninyo sa law?

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.

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.

Yes, sir.

At ano naman po yung naging involvement ninyo kung meron man sa mga nakaraang bar examinations?

Well, I was a bar examiner in 2015 and also last 2025 in political law.

Hindi po lahat ng tao ay nakaka... Ang maalam kung ano yung ginagawa ng isang bar examiner. Pwede po ninyong pakipaliwanag po yan?

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.

Sabi po ninyo, naglingkod kayo bilang bar examiner noong 2015 at 2025. Ano pong subject sa mga bar subjects?

Political law po.

Political law. Kasama po ba sa political law yung constitutional law, yung ating 1987 Constitution?

Yes, sir.

At yung po bang mga provision ng Constitution, halimbawa tungkol sa public accountability ay kasama po rin po yun, sakop po yun?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

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?

Yes, sir. I handled, among other lawyers in the Office of the Solicitor General, the so-called ill-gotten wealth cases.

In what capacity did you handle those ill-gotten wealth cases, Justice?

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.

Bilang chairperson po ng PCGG-OSG task force. Ano-ano po yung ginagawa ninyo?

Objection, Your Honor. May we know the relevance, Your Honor.

Establishing qualifications, if Your Honor is pleased.

Overruled. Witness may answer.

I reviewed the pleadings of The cases related to those cases.

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.

Probably thousand of hours po.

Sunod pong tanong, how about civil forfeiture cases involving money laundering? Nakahawag din po kayo ng ganun?

Yes sir, because the OSG actually is lawyer or acts as a lawyer and files actually these petitions for civil forfeiture with appropriate court.

So nung time po na yun... And that is the situation, isn't it, that the OSJ may hold? Yes. Let's

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?

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.

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?

All in all, probably around 700 cases, sir.

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?

Probably mga thousands of hours din po.

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?

Baka mahigit 5,000 hours or more.

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?

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.

If your honor, please, I have finished questioning the witness on her qualifications. May I proceed to the substance of her testimony?

You may proceed, counsel.

Thank you, your honor. Okay, panaman po kayo. Please have some water if you need to.

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?

May pagkakaiba po sila.

Ano po yung pagkakaiba?

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.

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.

Objection, Your Honor.

Speculative.

Um, what if I counsel?

May I respond? I know where

you're getting it.

Yes, Your Honor. Maari po ba kayo magbigay ng halimbawa ng hidden wealth na sinasabi niyong tagong yaman?

For example, a public officer owns, actually owns a property but that property is registered in the name of another person.

Yun po ang nakatagong yaman? Yes.

Yes, sir.

Maari po ba kayo magbigay ng isang halimbawa ng unexplained wealth?

Unexplained wealth is actually defined in Section 2 of RA 1379.

Babalikan po natin yung puntong yan mamaya-maya. Huling tunang po on this point lang. How about an example for ill-gotten wealth?

Ill-gotten wealth according to EO No. 1

Ayun ay mga kayamanan or yaman that was acquired through illegal means like through bribery, misappropriation, malversation, and the like.

Thank you, Justice. Ipakita po natin, request lang po sa tech booth, sa screen ang Section 8 ng Republic Act 3019.

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?

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.

Tutuong kayamanan dun sa kanyang lehitimong kita. Tama po yun?

Yes.

Paano malalaman ng pamahalaan kung ang isang opisyal ay meron ng unexplained wealth?

Ito'y karaniwan malalaman kung ang isang opisyal ay nagsumiti ng true and accurate sell-in.

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.

Yung lifestyle, IT, yung income tax returns.

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?

Even the properties and assets of the spouse and the children under 18 years of age.

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.

So we're objecting to this line of questions.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Yes, sir.

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?

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.

Ilinawin po natin, kapag may ganitong presumption, ibig bang sabihin ay guilty na agad ang opisyal?

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.

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?

Yes, sir.

At siyempre, may obligasyon po ba? I will withdraw and ask another question. At may obligasyon po ba ang pamahalaan na imbestigahan nito?

Rejection leading, Your Honor.

I will rephrase. What obligation does the government have in that situation?

Well, Section 8 of RA 1379 mandates that a preliminary inquiry be conducted.

Thank you. Move on na po tayo, Justice, sa pangalawang paksa.

Justice, paano naman kung sabihin ng isang opisyal, eh hindi naman sa akin nakapangalan niyang property. Tapos na po ba agad ang

usapan? Objection speculative, Your Honor.

Candidate Forum Counsel, again, you know how to get there.

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?

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.

Bakit po? Bakit pati ang ari-arian ng asawa at ng ibang tao ay maaari din tingnan sa ilalim ng batas?

Objection already calls for an opinion, Your Honor.

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

Honor, can we just make a clarification? Was she qualified as a legal expert by the court? No, the

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.

We'll submit your

order. Honorable Chal, you may proceed.

Sir,

can you please repeat the question?

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?

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.

Thank you, Justice. Ipakita po natin yung Section 8 ng Republic Act 3019 na nakahighlight po yung susunod na slide, please. Next slide, please.

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.

Ang ibig sabihin po yan ay kahit may nagbabawal na batas na gawin yun.

Thank you. Move on na po tayo sa pangatlong paksa.

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?

Objection leading, Your Honor.

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.

Kindly rephrase, counsel, but in the interest of time as well.

What are the rules, Justice, insofar as a President and Vice President are concerned as compared to the ordinary government employee.

There are stricter prohibitions on the President and Vice President and even actually the Cabinet Secretaries. They're under secretaries and assistants.

Bakit po mas mahigpit ang batas pagdating sa Presidente, Vice Presidente at Cabinet members?

Well, ayon sa Korte Suprema in the case of Civil Liberties Union, versus Executive Secretary.

There is the greater possibility of abuse in their office given their positions.

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?

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.

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.

Thank you, Your Honor. Ipakita po natin ang Article 7, Section 6 ng ating Constitution, please.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Thank you po. Move on na po tayo sa pang-apat na paksa.

Habang po ay presidente o vice-presidente ang isang tawag...

With the permission of the Honorable Jocno, Justice Tang, you interpreted emolument to mean salary? If I heard you correctly?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank

you.

If I may proceed, Your Honor.

If

I may proceed, Your Honor, please.

Question po, Justice. Habang presidente o vicepresidente, pwede po ba silang basta sumali o makilahok sa negosyo?

Hindi po.

Saan pong batas nakalagay ang pagbabawal na ito?

I think it's Section 13 of Article 7 of the Constitution.

Ipakita po natin ang Section 13. Yes.

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?

Indirectly simply means hindi silang gumagawa pero iba ang gumagawa but in their name. So ibang tao ang gumagawa para sa kanila.

Sa ganun sitwasyon, sino pong nakikinabang?

Yung official.

Thank you. Dito po ba pumapasok yung salitang beneficial owner?

Yes, sir.

Siyempre po maraming mga kababayan natin ay hindi po pamilyarang sa salitang beneficial owner. Pakipaliwanag po.

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.

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?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Move on na po tayo sa panglimang paksa.

Justice, may isa pang sinasabi ang ating konstitusyon na pwede pong ipakita ang Article 7, Section 13.

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?

Again, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of a civil

Liberties po.

Liberties versus executive secretary.

Thank you. Maari po ba kayong magbigay ng halimbawa ng may financial interest sa kontrata ang isang presidente o vice-presidente?

Well, I will cite a case involving a Supreme Court case. The president entering into a contract of lease with a government agency.

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.

Yes sir.

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

of interest. Ano pong ibig sabihin nun?

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.

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?

Sa kanyang SAL-N po. Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, Financial Interest, at saka Business Interest.

Para sa ordinaryong Pilipino po, bakit pa natin pinasa-SAL-N ang mga opisyal ng gobyerno?

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.

Ipakita po natin ang first page ng sale and form please.

Para lang po ba itong form na basta-basta lang sinasubmit ng opisyal o may mas mahalagang layunin ito laban sa corruption?

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.

I-close up po natin yung gitnang bahagi po ng page 1 ng SAL-N, please.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, sir. Yan po ang turo ng Supreme Court.

Thank you. Ipakita po natin yung notarial acknowledgement po ng SAL-N form, please.

Justice, may isang bagay po na gusto ko lang itanong tungkol dito. Ang SAL-N po ba ay pinipirmahan under oath?

Opo, it's required under the law.

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?

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.

Thank you. Malapit na po akong matapos. Ipakita po natin ang susunod po na slide.

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?

Dapat pag nag-submit ang isang official ng kanyang SAL-N, dapat ito ay tama at wasto?

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?

Ang ibig sabihin niyan ay ang SAL-N ay isang notoryadong dokumento and it is also an accountability framework para

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.

I have no more questions. If Your Honor, please, I would just like to thank the good justice for her appearance today.

Thank you. Will you cross today, Attorney Mark? Or do we proceed with the interjection of Senator-Judges?

Your Honor, can we ask if we can be allowed to conduct our cross-examination after lunch?

After lunch. After lunch it shall be. So we shall proceed with the interjections of Senator-Judges. Do we have a list, Anika?

Your Honor, may I be allowed to take my seat? Yes,

of course, Attorney Chel. The Honorable Chel.

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?

Okay,

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.

You may proceed when you're ready, sir. You have two minutes.

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?

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.

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?

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.

So kung hindi po na-declare sa SAL-N, ano pong tawag doon?

Well, it's an omission.

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.

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.

Pero kung perennial, palagi po nangyayari na lang, year after year, yung ganong klaseng omission na sinasabi niyo, so how would you consider that?

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.

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?

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.

Lawfully acquired yung property na iyon pero it was not declared doon sa SAL-N. May problema ba doon o wala po, Madam Witness?

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.

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?

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.

Okay. Maraming salamat po, Madam Witness. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank

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.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Ma'am, good morning.

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?

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.

Pag-repeated. Yes.

And

when you say repeated, ma'am, at least ang repeated, dalawa lang ho yan eh. Pero kung lima, tatlong repeated na ho yan.

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.

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.

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?

Dapat hindi na niya po yung i-include yung naibenta niya, kundi just the proceeds ng kanyang pagbebenta.

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?

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.

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?

I will not consider it unusual, but it is against the provision of Section 8 of RA 6713. And

therefore, if you do that, you are violating the law itself. That's your... Yes

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.

Maraming salamat po, Madam Justice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank

you, Senator Judge Villanueva. Our Senate President, Senator Wayne Gachalian is recognized for his interjections. You have two minutes, sir.

Good

morning, Madam Justice.

Unexplained wealth po.

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?

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.

Can you cite an example? Paano po matitrace to a public official?

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.

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?

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.

How about po yung pag-cash naman po? We're talking about assets.

Pag cash naman, for example, ayaw niya bumili ng assets but cash, paano pa-detect yung mga ganitong unexplained wealth?

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

How

about yung time horizon, Madam Justice? Kailangan gaano kahaba ba yung time horizon na dapat tignan in the accumulation of unexplained wealth?

Wala namang tinitignan na period po yan. Depende na po yun sa investigation that will be conducted.

How about yung unexplained wealth? Pag let's say meron nga nakitang unexplained wealth, sino po ang dapat mag-prove nitong unexplained wealth?

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.

Assuming yung respondent, dapat ba i-prove niya na this is not unexplained wealth?

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.

Assuming those are not declared in the SALN, paano niya i-defend o paano niya i-justify yung wealth accumulation?

Well, if he can present evidence that he was able to acquire these assets, Lawfully, like from lawful gratuitous gifts

or donate gifts. Pwede pa rin yun po.

Even in the absence of a declaration in the SAL-N, hindi niya din-declare.

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?

Hindi po.

So kailangan ho magtugma sa SAL-N and also the explanation?

Yes, sir. In

other words?

Yes, sir.

And pag hindi ho nagtugma, is that grounds for removal or removal from office?

Well, according to Section 8

of RA No. 3019,

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.

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?

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.

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.

Well, I will be answering po the question based on

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.

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?

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.

Thank you Madam Witness. Thank you Presiding Officer.

The Chair will have- Senator Judge Sotto is recognized.

You

may proceed sir. You have two minutes when you're ready.

Thank you Mr. Presiding Officer.

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?

Your Honor, hindi po akong, I was not part of the division that rendered that decision.

It

was another decision.

I

had no

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.

Mabanggit ko lang din para mapaalala natin pagdating doon sa mga SAL-N.

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?

Kung nasa possession mo pa rin po yung pera, you have to declare it.

Nung nagpa-file ka ng SAL-N? Yes, sir. Kahit hindi iyo yun?

Yes, sir.

Tama. Alright. Thank you. Senator-Judge

Lacson for his first round and then Senator-Judge Rafi Tulfo for his second.

You may

proceed,

Senator-Judge Lacson.

Good morning po, Justice.

Good morning, sir. Sa

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.

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.

Hindi po ba mag-a-apply din sa gobernador? At least within his area of jurisdiction?

Well, mayroon sa Republic Act 6713 yung mga prohibitions din po regarding local government officials and the other officials in government.

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?

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.

Maraming salamat po. Thank you, Mr.

President.

Senator-Judge, Rafi is recognized.

Salampung katalungan ko, Madam. Witness, and Mr. Presiding Officer.

Sa Sandigan, 12 years po kayo, no?

Yes.

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?

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.

Ano nangyayari naman dun sa tao? Siya ba ay nasibak sa servisyo? Nakulong?

At that time, wala na po siya

sa

pwesto.

Pero wala pa kinahawakan kung saan yung isang government official tulad ng nabanggit kanina na senaryo na siya ay nasibak sa servisyo o nakulong?

Wala pa po. Unfortunately, yung isa na kaso, namatay yung government official.

Pero kung hindi siya namatay, anong sana nangyari?

I will not speculate, sir. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank

you, Senator Judge Rafi. Senator Judge Kiko Pangilinan, you may proceed, sir, with your interjection. Thank you. Actually,

isang question lang. Siguro may isang follow-up kung kailangan.

Marami kasi ang ating mga kababayan nakikinig, nanonood. Ngayong ill-gotten wealth ang pinag-uusapan. Yung ill-gotten wealth ba kinakailangan pondo ng gobyerno?

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.

And the 50 million need not be public funds?

No sir, because I think it's paragraph B about bribery. Bribery, the money generally does not come from government but from other persons.

Okay. Yun lang. Maraming salamat Justice.

Thank you.

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.

It's burden of proof, sir, according to the Supreme Court.

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?

Yes, sir. I read that in one case, but I just don't remember the Supreme Court case now.

And the basis, if at all, would be Section 2 of 1379?

Yes, sir.

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.

Yes, sir. I stand correct.

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?

No more, sir, kasi wala na yung asset na yun or pondo at as of December 31 of that year.

At doon na po papasok yung binanggit niyong AMLAC? Yes,

sir.

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.

Yes, sir. Not salary, sir. It's income.

Kita. So,

emolument, you mean, is not limited to salary?

Shall not receive any emolument. That is salary, sir.

So, salary, ma'am?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

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?

No, it's not. It's not illegal.

So, he or she can take it? Pwede yan?

Yes, sir.

Kasi hindi siya salary.

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.

Your Honor, ang participate naman nakalagay dyan directly or indirectly.

Meaning?

Meaning, whether ownership in a corporation or participating either as a director or as an officer of the corporation, that is prohibited.

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?

Yes, sir.

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?

Yes, sir. In fact, there is... Under the law, there is a need to divest upon assumption of office immediately and within 30 days.

What law would that be, ma'am?

I think it's 6713, sir.

It's in the Code of Ethical Standards?

Yes.

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,

as

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?

Yes, sir.

That is your position, ma'am?

Yes, sir.

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?

Yes, sir. Because there is a prescribed form by the Civil Service Commission.

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?

Well, it's a pro-form. It's a form that is prepared by the Civil Service Commission.

All that the public, the president or vice president as the case may be, will do is to state they're not applicable, sir.

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?

Yes, sir.

Perhaps, right? Because it's there. The blank is there to be filled up.

Yes, sir.

So ang ilalagay dapat na nun, ma'am, not applicable?

Yes, sir.

If you're president and vice president?

Yes, sir.

That would be all, Madam Justice. Senator-Judge Pia, Senator-Judge J.V. Ejercito, and then we break for lunch?

I thought there were no other senator-judges, that's why I already interjected.

Yes, Senator-Judge Pia.

No, actually, mine

is just a follow-up to his Honor's question.

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.

Well, regarding the receipt of dividends, if those dividends already accrued before assumption of office, then that becomes divested right of the stockholder. There

is

no legal prohibition to that.

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.

Yes, ma'am.

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.

Yes, ma'am.

So that's very different from my understanding of the earlier response that you gave. But thank you for clarifying that. Thank you,

ma

'am.

Senator-Judge JV is recognized. Then we pause for lunch.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Justice.

Good morning, sir.

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?

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.

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.

No, sir. Wala po.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, Sir. Thank

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.

We shall

resume at 1 o'clock.

Trial is suspended. We are on recess until 1pm. Thank you.

Kindly situate Justice Cabotaje Tang at the witness stand. Kindly assist her, please.

Ma'am, nakakain po kayo, Justice Tang?

Yes, Your Honor.

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.

We can allow her first.

You're both giving way, so I will listen to her. She says

kayo...

Senator-Judge Risa, you want to proceed?

Senator Judge Riza, you want to proceed?

Yes.

You may proceed with your interjection before we proceed with the cross of the respondent.

Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

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.

So nabanggit niyo po kanina na may prima facie presumption sa mga kaso ng unexplained wealth.

Kailan po pumapasok o kailan nagkikick in yung ganyang presumption?

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,

lawful income, or sources from other legitimately acquired property.

So, bakit po gumawa ng ganyang presumption yung batas?

To

make it easier, I believe, for the government to go after errant public officials.

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.

That's my personal opinion, ma'am.

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?

Ang sabi ng batas po ay unlawfully acquired yung property. Meaning to say, these assets were acquired laban or labag sa batas.

Okay.

So, kailangan patunayan in that case?

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.

Yes

ma'am.

So ang kailangan lamang ay mapakita na may malaking kayamanan na hindi maipaliwanag saan galing. Yes ma'am.

Marami salamat po, Justice. Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Senator-Judge Hontiveros. Are you ready for your cross, Attorney Mark?

Yes, Your Honor.

You may proceed, sir, when you're ready.

Your Honor, we are conducting cross-examination ad cautelam, for the record, Your Honor.

Yes, given your continuing objection.

Good afternoon, Justice.

Good afternoon, sir.

You served in government for over 40 years, correct? Around 40 years.

44 years.

Before anything else, thank you po for your many years of service in government. Thank

you.

My first question is, do you consider yourself a legal expert?

I will not make that judgment on myself but I will let others do that for me.

Okay. Now in the Philippines, there are no licensure examinations before one can become a legal expert, correct?

Yes, in some cases.

There are no definite standards before one can be considered a legal expert, am I right?

Yes.

There are no certification programs before one can become a legal expert, correct?

Correct, sir.

So being a legal expert is not an official designation in the Philippines, correct?

No, there is no law that defines that.

Meaning being considered a legal expert is subjective, tama po ba?

I would say so, sir.

All members of the bar consider you as a legal expert?

I don't believe so, sir. Okay,

very well. Now, you became associate justice of the Sandigan Bayan in 2012?

Correct, sir.

You were appointed by Pinoy, tama po ba?

Yes, sir.

And the following year, 2013, you became presiding justice, tama?

Correct, sir.

You were also appointed by Pinoy as such?

Yes, sir.

So you were Sandigan Bayan justice for around 12 years?

Yes, sir.

Until you retired in 2024.

Correct, sir.

My question is this. Did you become a Supreme Court Justice?

No, sir.

Did you ever apply to become a Supreme

Court Justice? I

did, sir.

How many times po?

I think four times.

Four times, okay. And in all those four times, you were not selected to become a Supreme Court Justice? No,

sir.

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

question yet, Your Honor. For

the sake of time, I'll just read the first paragraph and then I'll ask questions thereafter. It says here, a group of

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.

Even

on cross-examination, if your honor, please. The documents used must be authenticated. There's no authentication yet of this document.

We note the objection of counsel. Atty. Mark, you may proceed. It

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?

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?

I don't recall, sir. You don't

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?

Yes, sir.

Were you ever disappointed at FPRRD for not appointing you?

No, sir.

That

is his exclusive prerogative.

But are you anti-Duterte? No,

I'm not.

Do you like VP Sara?

I do not know her personally.

Kakamping po ba kayo, ma'am?

Anong ibig sabihin nun?

Pink.

No, I've never been political in my life. I've always been apolitical. Pero

friends po kayo ni Representative Jocno.

No, we were adversaries actually in the Amparo cases before the Court of Appeals. Alright,

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?

Again sir, I will not pass judgment on my expertise or absence of it.

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.

No, sir. Not... No, sir.

No. You can explain, Poa. You wanted to explain.

No, my point here is I'm no longer an incumbent member of the judiciary. Yeah,

but when you

were in Sandigan Bayan, was that ever a case that you allowed a former magistrate to testify as

a witness? No, sir.

Because that former magistrate should be smart enough to know that such is not proper, correct?

Yung

pag-testify po nung magistrate na yun, she should know that it's not proper in Sandigan Bayan cases.

Well, it really would depend on the circumstances of the case, sir.

In that case, in Sandigan Bayan cases, I'm not talking about this case, but is it unethical? For that justice to testify?

In cases pending before the Sandigan Bayan?

Of

course, sir.

Unethical?

Of course.

At any rate, as a former magistrate yourself, you decided to testify today and give legal opinions in open court.

Objection, Your Honor. The witness, as I mentioned earlier, is here because she was subjected to a subpoena, an order by this honorable court.

As requested, of course, by the panel of prosecutors' counsel.

Witnesses may answer. Witnesses, it's important to be able to answer and or parry any questions from counsel.

Well, given the choice, sir, I would not have come here without the subpoena. You can withdraw

your testimony. Would you want to do that?

No, sir, I'm already here. You're already

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?

I don't exactly recall that now, sir.

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?

Yes sir, but these rules are applicable only to the members of the judiciary.

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?

Tama po.

Tama. Okay. So if the testimony po is about loss, no need po to call a witness to establish them. Tama po ba?

Correct because judges are should actually take judicial notice of laws as well as decisions of the Supreme Court.

At at any rate po, ma

'am, ganun po yung ginawa niyo dito. Tinulungan niya lang yung senator-judges. Ganun po ba ang nangyari?

Kasi yung explained laws po, I gave legal opinions eh. Ano pong masasabi

niyo doon? Ganun po ba ang nangyari dito, ma'am?

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.

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?

No, sir.

Wala, okay. Now let me direct your attention to the Supreme Court ruling on Kasumpang v. Cortejo regarding question of law.

Sabi po dito,

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.

Yes, sir. And even ascertainment of the facts based on the evidence. It

is not the function of the witness.

Of course not, sir.

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?

Yes, sir.

But such is not the case here because you were asked to testify on legal principles. Tama po ba?

Yes, sir. In fact, the presiding judge said that I am testifying now not as an expert witness.

In fact, these legal principles that were mentioned a while ago are basic even to law students, correct?

Correct, sir.

So, no need for a master's degree in law to understand these legal principles, correct?

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.

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?

Yes, sir.

An expert witness cannot simply usurp that function, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay,

let's move on. As Sandigan Bayan Justice, how many decisions were you part of, as ponente or otherwise?

Probably around... 300 cases. 300?

Ang dami. But let me direct your attention to Article 8 of the Civil Code.

It

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?

Correct sir.

My next question is this. Sandigan ba yung decisions

In

fact, Sandigan Bayan decisions are subject to review, reversal, and modification by the Supreme Court. Meaning, they can be overturned by the Supreme Court.

In

the decisions that you were part of, for example, were there decisions that the Supreme Court overturned?

Meaning,

the Supreme Court had a different interpretation of the

law.

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,

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

po yata sinabi ito, no?

May I ask

that the Council for Defense be instructed to wait for the witness to finish her answer before interrupting her. That's all. No