September 28, 2026

The Sergeant 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 Aimee Marcos.

Mahal naming Panginoon. Bantayan mo po ang aming bayan at pagkalooban mo ang iyong karunungan, ang mataas na kapulungang ito. Sa oras na kami ay humaharap sa mabibigat na pagpapasya, iadya mo kami sa pansariling interes, sa takot, sa impluensya, at sa anuman manipulasyon maaaring magpalihis sa aming paghatol. Ipaalala mo sa amin ang aming sinumpang tungkuling na pangalagaan ang konstitusyon at maging tapat sa katarungan. Nasusulat sa ating mga Salmo, Kapitulo 82, Versikulo 2, How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Panginoon, linisin mo ang aming budhi at patatagin mo ang aming loob upang ang aming pasya ay maging tapat sa batas at sa katotohanan, hindi sa aming pansariling interes. Ipaalala mo sa amin na ang kapangyarihan ay ipinagkakatiwala lamang at darating ang araw na bawat paghatol ay haharap sa pananagutan. Gabayan mo po kami, Panginoon, upang sa harap mo at sa harap ng aming bayan,

Wala kaming pagsisising dala kundi ang katiyakang ginawa namin lahat ng nararapat.

Amen.

Senator-Judge, Lacson, Senator-Judge, Lapid, Senator-Judge, Legarda, Senator-Judge, Marcoleta, Senator-Judge, Marcos, Senator-Judge, Padilla, Senator-Judge, Pangilinan, Senator-Judge, Soto III, Senator-Judge, Tulfo Irwin, Senator-Judge, Tulfo Rafi, Senator-Judge, Villanueva, Senator-Judge, Villar Camil, Senator-Judge, Villar Marc, Senator-Judge, Zubiri, the presiding officer, Senator-Judge, Escudero. The Senate President, Senator-Judge Gatchalian.

With 15 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 journal.

For September 22 and 23, that's journal number 29 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 Saira Zimmerman III.

Appearances of the parties.

Good morning, Your Honors. Same appearances for the prosecution.

For the

respondent.

Good morning, your honors. Same appearance for the respondent accused.

I believe you are supposed to do the cross of witness Mr. Supeno today. Is that correct?

Yes,

your honor. We are ready.

But before proceeding to the cross, your honor.

Yes, honorable Ridon.

Particular administrative matters. First would be our request for subpoenas.

We will decide on that later before we adjourn council.

Alright, we submit, Your Honor. And a second matter, on the marking of the documents which was brought by the witness previously, we would want it to be a single exhibit, P-Roman numeral 2, 271, page 1, and the same be continuously paginated, Your Honor.

Duly noted.

Before proceeding, we yield to Congressman Diokno, please.

Will you be handling the cross-examination, Honorable Diokno?

No, Your Honor.

Yes, what is your

pleasure, Honorable Diokno?

If I may briefly address the matter of the request for admission in so far as the objections that we received last week from the defense. If I may have a few minutes of the Honorable Court to make a manifestation and a proposal that we hope will facilitate the proceedings in this case.

I will allow it for a bit because the court intends to tackle that or take that up before we adjourn today given that I believe the issues have been joined already given the objection of the respondent. I will allow Attorney Sheila to respond as well with a brief rebuttal. Yes, Honorable Diokno, you may proceed.

Thank you. If Your Honor is pleased, good morning. Good morning to our colleagues in the defense panel. For context, Your Honor, the prosecution filed a request for admission. to narrow the matters genuine in dispute, conserve the Honorable Court's valuable time for issues that truly require evidence and resolution, and ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly and efficiently for the benefit of all the parties. Inihain po namin ang request for admission upang maging mas maayos at mabilis ang paglilitis po nitong kaso. Ito lang po ang aming layunin na tukuyin kung alin ang tunay na pinagtatalunan nang hindi na kailangan ubusin Ang oras ng hukuman sa mga bagay na maaari namang kilalanin o hindi naman talaga kontrobersyal. The request covers certain self-evident and factual matters, including records produced and submitted directly by several banks in compliance with the subpoenas issued by this court. Among others, the respondent was simply requested to admit or deny the existence, genuineness, and authenticity of these bank records. On September 23, 2026, the respondent filed her objection. She principally argues that Rule 26 is supposedly inapplicable to impeachment proceedings, that requiring her to answer would supposedly violate her right against self-incrimination and improperly shift the burden of proof, and that certain requested matters allegedly implicate marital or filial privileges are irrelevant or fall outside

The Honorable Court's permission, the prosecution will briefly explain why the objection should be overruled and how resolving this matter may substantially streamline and shorten the presentation of evidence and conserve the valuable time of this honorable court. Your Honors, with due respect, none of the grounds raised by the respondent justifies the wholesale rejection of the prosecution's request for admission.

The respondent argues that Rule 26 is inapplicable because impeachment proceedings are penal in character. But an impeachment trial, Your Honors, is neither an ordinary civil action nor a criminal prosecution. It is, as we have repeatedly said, a sui generis constitutional proceeding governed principally by the rules of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. Where those rules do not specifically provide otherwise, the rules of court may be applied suppletorily. Subject always to the control and discretion of this Court. Hindi po criminal case ang impeachment trial at malinaw po sa Senate rules na dapat gamitin ang Rules of Court in a suppletory character. Kasama po sa Rules of Court ang request for admission kaya hindi sapat na sabihin penal in character ang impeachment upang tuluyang ipagbawal ito. The request for admission is not being invoked to alter the burden of proof or to compel the respondent to establish the prosecution's case and will not have that effect. Its purpose is simply to narrow the issues and avoid the needless presentation of witnesses and evidence on matters that are not genuinely disputed. Ang mga bank records na tinukoy po namin sa request for admission ay galing mismo sa mga bangko at idinerecho sa hukumang ito. Hindi po ito dumaan sa kamay ng prosekyusyon. To be clear, the respondent has not made any claim that they are fake or fabricated. Ang nagsubmit nitong records ay hindi po mga pipitsugin na bangko. These are known banks who would not submit fake documents to this court. They know how important this case is. They know the whole nation is watching. Nakataya ang kanilang pangalan at reputasyon dito. That is why we are saying that the authenticity of the bank documents is not genuinely disputed. Second, the request does not violate the respondent's rights against self-incrimination. It does not require her to take the witness stand, give an oral confession, or create evidence that is not already available to the parties and to this court. More importantly, most of the requested matters concern only the existence and authenticity of documents already produced by independent banks in compliance with the order or subpoena issued by this court. Indeed, the request merely seeks recognition of existing records, does not compel the respondent to generate new testimonial or documentary evidence against herself. The respondent relies on authorities involving an accused in a criminal prosecution. These rulings, we submit, should not be mechanically extended to this sui generis proceeding, particularly with respect to neutral and disputable matters that do not, by themselves, establish liability or culpability. Wala pong paglabag sa karapatan ng respondent laban sa self-incrimination, Your Honest Peace. Hindi po namin siya pinapaamin sa anumang kasalanan o pananagutan. Ang hinihingi lang po namin ay ang pagkilala sa mga dokumentong sinabmit mismo ng mga bangko pursuant to the subpoenas of this Court. Sa mga bagay na hindi naman tunay na pinagtatalo namin. Third, the request does not shift the burden of proof. An admission merely dispenses with proof of a matter that is no longer genuinely disputed. It has absolutely no effect on who has the burden of proof. Ang purpose lamang po ng aming request ay huwag ng pag-aksayahan ng oras ng hukuman ang mga bagay na hindi naman kailangan patunayan pa. Fourth, The marital and filial privileges cited by the respondent do not justify striking out the entire request. Those privileges generally concern the compelled testimony of one spouse against the other or of a person against a parent or child. Here, the prosecution is not compelling the respondent to testify against her spouse, parent or child. At most, any claim of privilege, if legitimate, should be considered in relation to the particular matter affected. It is not a basis for expunging the prosecution's request in its entirety. Hindi po nagiging privilege ang isang dokumento dahil lamang nabanggit dito ang asawang magulang o anak ng respondent. Hindi po natin pinipilit ang respondent na tumistigo sa kanya asawa. At kung meron mang particular na paksa na saklaw talaga ng privilege, iyon lamang ang dapat tukuyin at resolbahan. Hindi po dapat ibasura ang buong request for admission dahil lang doon. Fifth, the respondent's generalized objections based on relevance, remoteness, or the periods covered by the records cannot justify the wholesale rejection of the request. At the very least, this honorable court has already determined that there was sufficient basis to require the banks to produce these records through its compulsory process. Finally, the request is not a belated attempt to cure a deficiency in the prosecution's evidence. Again, the bank's records were produced during these proceedings pursuant to subpoenas. Once the records became available, the prosecution properly sought to narrow the issues surrounding them and avoid consuming the court's time by presenting numerous witnesses simply to establish matters that should not reasonably be disputed. Hindi po ito afterthought, Your Honors. Gaya ng nasabi ko kanina, inihain po ang request ng maging available ang mga dokumentong sinubmit ng mga bangko alinsunod sa SabPinas ng hukuman. Ang layunin po ay simple, tukuyin kung alin ang tunay na pinagtatalunan at huwag nang ubusin ang panahon at oras ng Korte sa pagpapatawag ng maraming witnesses para lamang patunayan ng mga bagay na hindi naman genuinely disputed. Your Honor, for these reasons, the prosecution respectfully submits that the objection should be overruled and that the matters covered by the request should be deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. But, Your Honor, please, nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation and to avoid unnecessary delay or disagreement, the prosecution has a proposal or proposition for the respondent. In their objection, the respondent claims And I quote, if indeed, this is from paragraph 41 for the record, quote, if indeed their intent was to shorten the proceedings, the prosecution has itself repeatedly utilized stipulations to dispense with the presentation of matters that are not genuinely disputed. If speed were truly the objective, the same course remained available. Since according to the respondent, the same course remains available, We are willing to enter into stipulations with the respondent in relation to the bank documents, as well as other documents produced by witnesses through the subpoenas issued by this court. These stipulations will be limited only to three basic matters. Number one, that the bank records exist. Number two, that they were produced by the identified banks pursuant to subpoenas issued by this honorable court. And number three, that they are genuine and authentic copies of the records maintained and produced by those banks. Ganun lang po kasimple, Your Honors. We will withdraw our request for admission if the respondent will agree to this. The proposed stipulations would not require the respondent to admit liability, the truth or accuracy of every entry, or the prosecution's interpretation of any transaction. The respondent would remain free to contest the relevance, meaning, Evidentiary weight and legal effect of the records. Kung makapagkasundoan po tayo to the defense, we would be able to dispense with about at least 10 to 20 witnesses who would be testifying on the same things anyway. Kung iaharap pa natin ng humigit-kumulang 20 karagdagan testigo para lang patunayan ng mga foundational matters na ito, malaking bahagi ng oras ng mga pagdinig ang masasayang. sa mga bagay na hindi naman tunay na pinagtatalo. In conclusion, Your Honor, the respondent herself expressly declared that stipulations remain available. The prosecution is prepared to take the respondent at her word. Therefore, we invite the respondent to engage in stipulations on these matters so that we can proceed with the actual litigation that must be done in this case. Maraming salamat po.

Honorable Diokno, you filed a motion for admission. The opposing counsel, counsel for respondent, filed an objection thereto. You just delivered your rejoinder. Is it written, counsel? I saw you reading.

I may

submit that.

Can

you submit that rejoinder to the court, please?

Yes.

Court now recognizes Attorney Sheila for her sir rejoinder to counsel's rejoinder to the issue. You may proceed, ma'am.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Good morning.

We will no longer quibble with the arguments propounded today by the Honorable Diokno, considering also the penultimate statement that he had made in respect of the withdrawal of the request for admission in exchange for stipulation. But before we respond to that new proposal in lieu, For the request for admission, we would just like to address a few points which we will put in writing and submit formally to the court given that the prosecution was also given the opportunity to provide a written rejoinder to the objection or reply to the objection.

The prosecution claims that the defense relies on authorities.

That only deals or involves criminal cases, that actually is not true, Your Honor. In fact, we have as early as 1969 a

Supreme Court decision. This is Pascual Jr. versus Board of Medical Examiners, which involves an administrative proceeding for future. And in this case, despite this being a mere administrative proceeding, the Court nonetheless upheld the right of the respondent to the absolute self-right against self-incrimination. In fact, and I will state the ruling of the court, the broad all-embracing sweep of the self-incrimination clause whenever appropriately invoked has been accorded due recognition by this court ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Bermudez versus Castillo. decided in 1937, ganun na po katagal ang garantiang ito, was quite categorical. As we there stated, this court is of the opinion that in order that the constitutional provision under consideration may prove to be a real protection and not a dead letter, it must be given a liberal and broad interpretation favorable to the person invoking it. The proceeding for forfeiture, while administrative in character, thus possesses a criminal or penal aspect. The case before us is not dissimilar. Petitioner would be similarly disadvantaged. He could suffer not the forfeiture of property, but the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner. For some, an even greater deprivation. The constitutional guarantee protects as well the right to silence. As far back as 1905, we had the occasion to declare, the accused has a perfect right to remain silent, and his silence cannot be used as a presumption of his guilt. Only last year in Chavez v. Court of Appeals speaking through Justice Sanchez, we reaffirmed the doctrine anew that it is the right of a defendant to forgo testimony. To remain silent unless he chooses to take the witness stand with undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own free, genuine will. Why it should be thus is not difficult to discern. The constitutional guarantee, along with other rights granted and accused, stands for a belief that while crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, Such desirable objectives should not be accomplished according to means or methods offensive to the highest sense of respect accorded the human personality. More and more, in line with the democratic creed, the deference accorded an individual even though suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due weight. The quote from Chief Justice Warren, the Constitutional Foundation underlying the privilege is the respect of government. must accord to the dignity and integrity If the Supreme Court has applied the right against self-incrimination or the right to at least remain silent as far or as early as 1969 in a mere administrative proceeding because the proceeding as it had determined carries with it some penal sanction then all the more that this should be respected in an impeachment case regardless whether or not this is a Sui generis proceeding. Because the court had long recognized in INRE Corrileño that an impeachment trial is highly penal in character. Now, from 1969 up to present, there has been a string of cases that the court, where the court stated that this right of the accused, the responded accused in this case, not to testify or be compelled to testify is absolute your honor. At kung ito ay ginagamit o kinikilala at ginagalang sa isang administratibong proceeding lamang, di lalong higit na dapat itong igalang dito sa impeachment case na ito. Pangalawang bagay na nais naming

sagutin ay, uh, ang statement na no right or, uh, will be violated, or no right of the respondent will be violated, uh, by the request for the admission because it does not

Ang problema rito sa ganitong assertion Ang ifinal ng prosecution ay isang request for admission under Rule 26 which the court had already observed to be a civil procedure means or mechanism. At sa ilalim ng Rule 26, sinasabi doon na in case na hindi makakasagot or ang respondent. Doon sa itinakdang panahon para sa pagsagot sa RFA o sa request for admission ay may tinatawag na implied admission. Now, the court also had consistently said that an admission is actually akin to a testimony. Kaya nga tawag admission. At kung ang garantiya ng Constitution natin ay pinagbabawal ang compulsion sa isang respondent o akusado na mag-testify against himself, dapat ding pagbawalan. Yung pagtatangka na kumuha ng tinatawag na admission, whether this is expressed through a response sa request for admission or implied by the operation of the rule under Rule 26.

So, yung pong request for admission, bagamat kinikilala namin ang sinabi ngayon ng prosecution that They can withdraw the request for admission provided that we stipulate. Ang isa pa naming nakikitang concern dito ay hindi pa nga ako nasisimula ng pagmamarka ng mga dokumento na galing sa mga bangko. In fact, I was just informed that more documents are set today for marking, Your Honor. Ibig sabihin, wala rin sapat na panahon para makita ng respondent at ng kanyang mga abogado ang mga dokumento na ito and there will be no basis for any stipulation today or even tomorrow or even on Wednesday, Your Honor. And kung magkakaroon man tayo

ng stipulation, our suggestion is that the proposal for stipulation be made at the appropriate time. And that appropriate time is At the time when the prosecution will make its offer on the testimonial evidence accompanying any documentary evidence that they would want to present before this court. Yan lamang po. Thank

you.

Thank you. Kindly submit, Attorney Sheila. You will submit your written surrender on this matter?

We will, Your Honor.

May I just make a short two-sentence manifestation, Your Honor? Not really a response to the statements of... Atty. Sheila.

Yes, briefly, Honorable Jofna.

I understand, Your Honor, that the exhibits from the first set of subpoenaed records have already been marked. What is ongoing in terms of marking are the documents that came in after, which I think can easily, if that is the only problem, can easily be surmounted by both parties. With respect to the other arguments, we will just submit our arguments, if Your Honor, please. Last manifestation, Your Honor, I believe the members of this honorable court are aware that just like in legislative inquiries, it's only when questions are propounded to a witness that the time is appropriate to raise the objection or to invoke the right against self-incrimination. That is all, Your Honor.

May I suggest, Attorney, rather honorable Diokno, kindly reduce your request for stipulation in writing? So that the other party can intelligently comment on it, whether at a later or appropriate time, kindly do so. Number two, with your intelligence, Attorney Sheila. After submission, the court will make a ruling on the matter, even if you are considering withdrawing it should the stipulation be made by counsel-forrespondent in order to guide the parties prospectively how to approach this matter and this issue and hopefully... also serve as a persuasive basis perhaps in future impeachment courts. So the court will not disregard the motion and the objection even if it is so withdrawn later if a stipulation should be agreed upon in order that this matter may be clarified. The court will issue the ruling within the week if not tomorrow. Yes, Attorney Sheila, before we move on to the witness.

Yes, Your Honor. We'll make this quick. Just a short response to the last, um, point made by a prosecutor, um, Congressman, the Honorable Congressman Chel Diokno, that, um, the objection to any questions propounded, um, can only be made through—can only be made at the time when the question is propounded. Actually, Your Honor, that is not entirely accurate, Your Honor, because it is also, um, um, uh, basic that, um, the accused

occupies a different tier of protection when it comes to the right against self-incrimination or the right to remain silent. Kaya po, mula noon hanggang ngayon, ang pag-apply ng garantiang ito ay dalawang level. For an ordinary witness, tama iyon that the objection may only be made at the time when the question is propounded. Ngunit sa isang akusado, Dahil siya ay may ibang tier o level ng protection, this right is absolute, Your Honor. Thank you.

Okay, let's move on. Honorable Diokno, will you be the one to call the witness or will Attorney Erwin be the one to handle the witness?

May I yield to the Honorable Lead Prosecutor, Representative Luis Tro. But before that, just thank the defense for It's always a pleasure to have this exchange of views with the defense counsels. Thank you.

We will be proceeding with the cross of field jobs, Your Honor.

And

this representation will

be assisting the witness.

And on the part of the respondent?

It will be Atty. Roberto Narvaza Batongbakal, Your Honor.

Yes, Robby.

Kindly situate the witness at Mr. Supena to the witness stand.

Atty. Robby, welcome back.

Morning, Your Honors.

Ginong Supena, naunawaan niyo po na patuloy kayong tetestigo sa hukumang ito? At naunawaan niyo po ba na kayo'y patuloy na nasa ilalim ng pareho niyo pong pinanumpaan? Una kayong nagpakita dito sa hukumang ito?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay. Atty. Robby, you may proceed with your cross-examination when you're ready.

Mr. Supena, good morning.

Maganda kumala po, sir.

Mr. Supena, during your direct examination, you said that you were the division chief? Of the EGPOD, correct?

Yes,

sir.

Can you remind us again what does EGPOD stand for?

Electronic Government Procurement Operation Division.

And during your direct examination, you also said that the PhilGEPs, it was created under procurement laws. Do you remember that?

Yes, sir. Yes.

And the declared policies under these procurement laws are, tell me if I'm correct, first is to promote transparency, correct?

Yes, sir.

Also to promote public monitoring, correct?

If you are aware.

Not public monitoring.

If you're... Accountability?

I'm not aware.

Competition and government procurement?

Not aware.

Not aware.

And Mr. Witness, during your direct examination, you said that the PhilJeps portal serves as the single electric portal for all government procurement, correct?

Yes, po.

Procurement

activities, sir.

So by this, you mean this is where invitations to bids? Request for quotations, notices of award, notices to proceed, and other procurement and technical documents are uploaded, correct?

Uploaded, and yung bid notice po, dun po kinikreate. Yes,

thank you Mr. Witness.

And Mr. Supena, this PhilJaps portal, you also said this was accessible to the public, correct?

Yes sir, correct.

So as long as you sign up, log in, it's accessible to practically anyone.

Capabilities po kahit hindi po nakaregister.

Thank you. So the portal is accessible to merchants, correct?

Yes, sir.

Yes. Potential bidders, correct?

Correct po, sir.

Yes. Public oversight committees, correct?

Yes, sir.

Yes.

And you said that once the procurement activity is fully conducted by the procuring entity, they would have to upload Procurement documents to fully close the bid. Do you remember saying that?

Yes sir, as part of the responsibilities.

Okay,

thank you Mr. Witness.

During your direct examination, you also brought a summary. Do you remember that?

Yes sir.

Yes. And based on your summary, the documents that signify the award and the closing of the bids are

Purchase Orders, Notices of Award, Back Resolutions, Abstract Quotation, and Certificate of Availability of Funds. Correct?

Your Honor, please. Since the

question

pertains to the summary, which during the direct, the witness testified to he prepared, may we request that the witness be confronted with the document, Your Honor.

You have a copy of that already, right, Attorney Robby?

Yes, Your Honor, we already have a copy of that.

Did you bring your copy, Mr. Cepena?

I don't have, Your Honor.

Wala kang kopya nung summary mo? I

submitted po kasi lahat nung dala ko.

Wala kang dala?

Kindly furnish him, Assistant Counsel. Kindly show if you have an extra copy.

Unless you'll use it, Attorney Robby, in which case may I ask the Counsel, Assistant Counsel for the Prosecution to kindly furnish the witness with a copy of the summary?

Yes, Your Honor. May we ask the prosecution to show the Mr. Sopena a copy of the...

Dahil baka kailangan ni Atty. Robian sa kanyang cross?

Thank you, Your Honor.

May we manifest, Your Honor, that the prosecution is using the official court's copy.

Okay. For the record...

May I request that assisting counsel be allowed to approach the witness?

Assisting

counsels from both sides may approach. Mr. Witness, Mr. Sopena, you may refer to your...

For

the better appreciation, Your Honor, of the viewing public, as well as the Honorable Senator-Judges, may we request the Tech Booth as well to flash this summary being referred to by the Defense Council, Your Honor.

Yes, Atty. Robby.

Your

Honor, there's no need to flash, Your Honor, so we can be quick, Your Honor.

Yes,

there's no need, Honorable Uso.

We submit, Your Honor.

Are you there, Mr. Supena? Page 2?

Sir,

what particular documents?

This is the table where you listed projects numbers 1 to 49.

I believe, Your Honor, that the defense is not referring to the summary prepared by reference of a lease. Of 1 to 49, I believe that the defense is pertaining to the Excel file which was extracted by the witness from the field job system as testified to by him during the direct examination, Your Honor.

Yes, Your Honor. I think the witness, I'm on the same page with Mr. Sopena already.

Yes, okay. Witness may answer. Mr. Sopena, you may answer based on the document you're holding on to.

Do

you want me to repeat the question, Mr. Sopena?

Yes,

page 2. This is the Excel file or the list which shows bid reference, mode of procurement.

Yes.

So,

Mr. Sopena, let me ask the question again.

So,

based on the summary, the

documents that Signify the award and the closing of the bids are, among others, I'm just reading what's stated in the document. So these are purchase orders, notices of awards, the back resolution, abstract of quotation, and certificate of availability of funds, correct?

Correct, sir. Ito po yung mga in-upload ng mga current entities.

Thank you, Mr. Sopena. And that is listed under the column... that you denominated as uploaded award documents. Correct?

Correct po, sir.

And Mr. Supena, the posting of the award, I will refer to them as award documents, Mr. Supena. The posting of the award documents on the PhilGeps portal signifies the completion of the procurement process for that specific project.

Objection, Your Honor.

I

believe, Your Honor, that the witness is not or has no Personal knowledge to answer the question as to whether the uploading of those documents actually completed the entire procurement process. Your Honor, I wish to remind the Honorable Impeachment Court that during the direct, he repeatedly stated that his testimony or knowledge is based solely on what appears in Philjep's system. As to whether, Your Honor, the uploaded documents signifies the completion of the procurement process is beyond the personal knowledge and even beyond the scope of the testimony of the witness, your honor.

If he knows, counsel, he may answer along those lines. If indeed he doesn't know, objection is overruled. Witness may answer. Mr. Cepena, alam niyo po ba yung sagot sa tanong ni Atty. Robbie?

Based on the system po, pag inupload na po nila yung mga documents, these documents, once nag-create po sila ng Award notice. We'll close po the bid notice created.

That's good enough for me, Mr. Your Honors.

So, Mr. Zopena, let's go to the... During your direct examination, you also mentioned 49 contracts supposedly awarded to GenCorp. Did I get that correctly?

Yes, po.

Yes, you mentioned 49.

Correct po, sir.

So, based on this summary, you confirmed that every contract awarded, supposedly awarded to GenCorp, had a corresponding award document. Correct?

Objection, Your Honor.

Yes, counsel.

The question of the defense is misleading. There is no statement or it was never established that in every invitation or bid notice there is an awarded contract, Your Honor.

Your Honor, I'm just asking the witness to confirm what is written on the summary that he said He prepared your honor.

Again, witness is knowledgeable enough. He may answer if he knows. We submit your honor.

Can you please repeat the question, sir?

So the contracts to GenCorp had uploaded award documents based on your summary. Is that correct?

Only which indicated po. Ayan lang po yung mga inupload ng procuring entity.

Okay.

Ayan lang po yung came into my knowledge po.

Okay. So, Mr. Witness, so of course, these uploaded award documents were uploaded on the PhilGepps portal, correct?

Correct po,

uploaded to

the PhilGepps portal by the procuring entity, sir.

Which means, Mr. Witness, that these contracts awarded to GenCorp went through the PhilGepps portal, correct?

Uploaded by the procuring entity, sir.

And none of these transactions were hidden from the public, correct?

Yes, all the procurement data are publicly available, sir.

And none of these transactions were hidden from regulatory agencies, correct?

Based on the Filjet system.

Thank

you, Mr. Witness. So, Mr. Witness, insofar as your office is concerned, these contracts, supposedly awarded to GenCorp, went through the procurement process, insofar as your office is concerned.

May I make a manifestation?

The witness

repeatedly stated already that the testimony is based solely on what appears in the fieldship system. So may I request that the defense raise questions along those lines, Your Honor. He has no knowledge at all about the actual bidding process. So that whenever there are questions on procurement, I hope that the defense will be referring to the System of Failures, Your Honor.

The manifestation is noted. Counsel may proceed.

Mr. Supena, so just let me repeat the question. So these contracts supposedly awarded to GenCorp, insofar as your office is concerned, went through the procurement process, insofar as your office is concerned.

May I manifest a similar objection, Your Honor? I wish to request, Your Honor, the defense to be very particular about the use of procurement. Whether he is referring to the actual procurement or he is referring to the system. Because if his reference is the actual procurement, we will be objecting to that, Your Honor. Because the witness has no knowledge with respect to the actual procurement process.

Yes, Your Honor. I think this court already made a ruling, Your Honor. And Your Honor, I am on cross so I am entitled to ask Mr. Supena any matter relevant to his direct examination.

Honorable Winslow, the chair will just note your continuing objection with respect to this line of questioning by the counsel for respondent which the court already allowed if the witness knows. He may so respond if he does not know, if he is not aware of the answer given the limited scope of his knowledge with respect to Phil Jeffs only. You may continue. You may continue, Attorney Robby. Continuing objection of the Honorable Winslow is duly noted and placed into the records.

Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Sopena, let me repeat my question for a second time.

So this means that every contract awarded to GenCorp insofar as your office is concerned went through the procurement process, if you know.

Again, sir, we are all basing it on the uploaded documents. And if they uploaded it and they created a notice of award based on the system itself, and pag nakakreate po yung award,

I would assume po kasi nag-create po sila ng award notice.

Thank you, Mr. Supena.

Mr. Supena, also in your direct examination, you mentioned that based on the documents you extracted from the PhilGepps database, GenCorp was supposedly awarded 49 contracts?

49.

49. And these contracts were from, if I'm not mistaken, July? July 2022 to 2025.

May I request your honor that the witness be confronted again with the document. I think you are provided already. May we request the assisting counsel to approach the witness?

I think he has it with him. Witness may answer.

Could I refer your honor?

Yes, of course, Mr. Supena.

Sir, and what specific procurement entity?

For each Mr. Supena for GenCorp, I am just asking a... For you to confirm an approximation of the years when these were supposedly awarded.

Only if you can recall, Mr. Supena.

Based on the PhilGeps, meron pong na-award noong February 14, 2023. As early as 2023.

Okay.

So, Mr. Supena, still on your summary and the documents you were asked to brought last week, you confirmed that out of the 49 contracts,

Only 15 were awarded by the local government of Davao City.

Yes, based on the summary, Your Honor. Yes.

And out of the 49 contracts, you said that 33 were awarded by PhilHealth Region 11, is that correct? Did I get that correctly? Awarded,

yes po. Yes.

And one contract was awarded... by the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration Region 11, correct?

Awarded to OWA.

Yes. Awarded by?

Awarded by the procuring entity to OWA po.

Yes. And Mr. Supena, are you aware that PhilHealth is a national government agency?

Yes.

Are

you also aware that OWA, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, is also A national government agency.

Yes, sir.

Because

there are procuring entities registered in the field, sir.

So, Mr. Sopena, PhilHealth and OWA are independent from the local government of Davao City, correct? If you know.

They are different agencies.

Thank you, Mr. Sopena. So, just let me get this straight. So, for 34... out of the 49 contracts that you referred to. So on the basis of the documents that you brought last week.

So Davao City played no role in the evaluation or the or approving the award of these contracts to GenCorp.

I have no personal knowledge.

Thank

you, Mr. Witness.

So Mr. Supena, let's go to another point. Mr. Supena, you said that as the division chief of the AGPOD, You are the overall custodian of the PhilGEPs data system?

Correct po, the

repository,

yes sir.

And as part of your functions, you issue certifications if requested?

Based on subpoenas, yes sir.

So Mr. Supena, based on your direct examination, it is clear that your testimony is limited only to identifying and authenticating documents that the prosecution asked you to bring last week, correct?

Your

Honor, please.

Your

Honor, asked

and answered by the witness.

The

question actually is misleading, Your Honor. It's not the prosecution which issued the subpoena. It is the Honorable Impeachment Court which ordered the production of the documents which are the official submissions of Phil Jepps, Your Honor.

But as requested by the prosecution counsel.

I

understand, Your Honor.

Witness may answer?

Mr. Sobeño, let me repeat, okay? So based on your direct examination, it is clear that your testimony is limited to Identifying and authenticating documents that the prosecution asked you to bring last Tuesday.

I just based those requests po sa natanggap kong sabbina, which came from, I think, the clerk.

Yes. Okay.

So, Mr. Supena, but you confirm your testimony is limited to identifying and authenticating documents that you brought.

Move on, counsel.

Yes, Your Honor. So, Mr. Supena, you were not... Personally present at any stage of the procurement process for these contracts.

It's not part of the mandate of the PhilGips office.

Thank you, Mr. Witness. Mr. Sopena. So, safe to say you were not part of the pre-bidding conference, Mr. Sopena?

It's

not part of the mandate of the PhilGips and the function of the division.

You

were not part of the opening of bids.

Your Honor, please. It has been repeatedly testified to by the witness. that the knowledge is based solely on what appears in the system and he has no knowledge with respect to the actual bidding process, much less part of the bids and awards committee. So, we are entering our objection to the similar line of questions of the defense, Your Honor.

The continuing objection of counsel for the lead prosecutor has been placed on record. Counsel may proceed. Move on to another topic, Counsel.

Thank you, Your Honor. Just a few more questions, Mr. Supena. Mr. Supena, Let's go back to the documents that you brought last week. You did not prepare any of these documents, correct?

What particular documents, sir?

All of the documents. All of the technical and bid documents that you brought, that you extracted from PhilGems.

Asked and answered, Your Honor.

We submit, Your Honor.

Asked and answered, counsel.

May we request that the witness be reminded to wait for a while before... He responds to the question of the defense.

Mr. Zopena, ilang segundo lamang po. Huwag naman ganun katagal.

Yes,

sir. Yes, Your Honor.

Salamat po. Yes, Atty. Robby, please.

Yes,

Your Honor, just a few more questions. Mr. Zopena, you, let's, still on those documents, you also confirmed that other than certifying the documents, you did not sign any of those bid or technical documents. Correct?

Your Honor, please.

Yes, Atty. Luis Ram.

May we be clarified on signing the bid documents because it was testified to

May we be clarified on the context of the question about signing the documents?

Tama po ba?

Yes,

Your Honor. Correct po.

Lahat po yan, di ba? Whether City of Davao, whether OWA, whether PhilHealth, o kahit ano pang ahensya ng gobyerno.

Yes, Your Honor. Lahat po. Uploaded po ng procuring entity.

Uploaded ng procuring entity. Your knowledge is only limited in so far as it is contained in your system.

Correct, Your Honor.

And you had no part in the preparation of any of the documents.

Correct, Your Honor.

Okay. Please proceed, Counsel.

So, Mr. Supena, your... Your testimony is primarily based on documents prepared by third parties. Is that correct?

Prepared and uploaded by the procuring entities.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Supena.

And finally, Mr. Supena, you cannot say that any of these contracts were awarded irregularly. Is that correct?

Objection, Your Honor. That is beyond the competence of the witness, Your Honor. The witness is not competent in as far as irregularity or regularity of contracts are concerned, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, it has been repeatedly stated that the testimony is limited only to what appears in the field job system as to whether they are irregular or regular. It is beyond the scope of the testimony. It is beyond the knowledge of the witness, Your Honor.

If he knows, counsel, because the Chair would also like to know if from their point of view they can see any absence of compliance, whether you call it irregularity or lack of compliance. Chair would also like to know if indeed from his point of view he would see it from where he is seated. Witness may answer if you know.

The oversight and compliance is not part of the mandate of the PhilGEMS office. We are merely the repository of the procurement data, sir.

Your Honor, nothing further to cross.

Just to clarify, so hindi niyo po alam kung may mali o palpak o hindi tamang dokumentong

sinumite?

Tama po, Your Honor.

Kaninong trabaho po yan kung hindi niyo trabaho?

I

believe, sir, those irregularities are mostly being found during the audit. Audit na. Kaya wala

kayong obligasyon, trabaho, responsibilidad na tingnan yan o sabihin mali to, kulang to, tama to.

So kahit

may nakita ka o may alam ka, wala kang pwede magawa?

We are basing kasi your honor yung mga ina-upload so we have no knowledge po talaga kung ano.

And

neither do you communicate with the entity uploading na may kulang, may mali?

It's not part po. Hindi rin po namin ginagawa.

Okay.

Are you done with the cross, Atty. Robbie?

Yes, Your Honor.

Any redirect, lead prosecutor?

No redirect for the prosecution, Your Honor.

Any Senator-Judge who wishes to make interjections with this witness? Anika, may listahan ka?

Wala.

Kung wala, we will... Yes, Senator-Judge Risa Ontiveros is recognized for her interjections, rather. You have two minutes, ma'am. You may proceed when you're ready.

Salamat po at sorry, Mr. Presiding Officer. Magandang umaga po, Atty. Sopena.

Good morning. Hindi po ako atty. Your Honor.

Oh, I'm sorry. Mali yung note ko. Mr. Sopena, magandang umaga po.

Mali po ba na gawing kontraktor ng LGU ang isang kumpanya kung saan may interes ang mismong kapatid ng mayor?

Apologies, Your Honor, when it comes to legality po. Medyo I have no personal knowledge po. I'm more inclined po sa PhilJEP system.

Alright. So kung hindi particular dyan sa paksang iyon, pero mula sa pananaw ng PhilJEPs, may alam po ba kayo or may alam po ba ang PhilJEPs na maaaring nilalabag sa ganyang sitwasyon?

Under the PhilJEPs office, ma'am, we manage and ano kasi yung system itself po mismo eh.

You

manage

what, sorry

sir?

The PhilJEP system itself po. So we are heavily dependent kung ano po yung data na ini-input po ng mga procuring entity. So with the legality, PhilJEP's office po has no talagang knowledge po.

So dun sa mga data na ini-input sa PhilJEP system at kung saan? Necessarily, heavily dependent ang PhilGEPs. Wala po kayong inoobserbahang mga batas na may kinalaman dun sa pag-input ng mga data sa system ninyo?

For the PhilGEPs office, ma'am, we are merely, parang ini-implement lang namin yung mga procurement law na lumalabas.

Okay. So, kaugnay ng procurement law, in relation to the,

Sorry ma'am.

Yes, in relation to the

PhilGEPs system po,

yung ALTI po. So in relation to the PhilGEP system, in relation to the procurement law, meron bang nakikita ang PhilGEPs na maaaring nilalabag sa sitwasyon na tinanong ko sa inyo na kapamilya o kamag-anak, kapatid ng mayor, yung contractor ng LGU?

For the field job system side, we have talaga po no personal knowledge pagdating po sa ganyan. Apologies po, Your Honor.

That's alright, Mr. Sopena.

Sa mga kontrata ng Davao City LGU na inaward sa GenCorp, ilan po ang hindi dumaan sa public bidding?

Based on my, if I remember it right, 15 po minus 11 po ang hindi dumaan sa public bidding.

11. Sa 11 na alam niyo, magkano yung katumbas na halaga ng mga kontratang inaward sa GenCorp na hindi dumaan sa public bidding?

Can

I check?

Mr.

Presiding Officer, if the witness may check his...

You

may check your table and summary or summary.

Salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Just a rough estimate, Your Honor. Kasi ang total po ni Davao is 34,216,000. Of this po yung apat po is yung public bidding. So may 5 million, 6 million, 9 million. Rough estimate po mga nasa 5-11.

Sorry? So 34 million ang katumbas?

Ang total po.

Nung

11?

Nung 15 po. Kasama po yung apat na public bidding.

And yung 11 po is through negotiated small value procurement po.

Okay. So yung mga in award through negotiated small value bidding?

Value posting.

Magkano yung halagang iyon ng mga hindi dumaan sa public bidding?

So meron po rito na wala lang po ang total pero meron po rito yung 501,600 pesos, 414,000, 249,000, 49,800 pesos, 498,000, 805,500 pesos, 381,500,000. 508,000, 254,000, and 554,000 po your honor. So roughly mga nasa 8 million or 7 million siguro po ito.

So roughly 7 to 8 million yung halaga ng mga hindi dumaan sa public bidding na inaward ng Davao City LGU sa GENCORP.

Based on estimate, yes.

Yes, based on the estimate. So a range of 7 to 8 million. So, salamat po, Mr. Subpeña. That's all for now. Thank you,

Senator-Judge Andiveros. Senator-Judge Rafi Tulfo is recognized. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready. And you have two minutes.

Mr. Presiding Officer, hindi ko alam kung tatanong ko sa prosecution o sa witness. Anyway, anybody can answer from the prosecution or the witness. Kasi, ang tanong ko...

Allowed ba ang GenCorp na mag-participate sa public bidding sa Davao, knowing na si VP Sara ay isa sa mga may-ari ng GenCorp, and then yung Davao is balwarte niya? And so wala bang conflict of interest doon?

Hindi ba nafa-flag down 'yon agad ng GenCorp na, 'Teka muna, may conflict of interest ata rito'?

Would you like to answer that or the

prosecution?

May I respond,

Your

Honor?

Your Honor, that particular scenario If the name of VP Sara is, I mean, if there are shall and already, which the Respondent Vice President herself acknowledged, admitted, that she is part of this corporation, then GenCorp should not be participating in the bidding of City of Davao, which is headed by no less than the brother of the Respondent Vice President. While the procurement lawyer honor is not very much explicit on this, it is my humble submission that this is the conflict of interest contemplated under Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution.

Thank you. Yun nga ang pinagtataka ko habang pinagdadabatihan natin ngayon. Inabot na tayo ng isang oras whether, sabi niya ng defense, the contracts were not awarded irregularly. Yun ang tanong niya sa witness. At sinabi pa ni Sen. Cheese, Sen. Officer, may mali ba o palpak sa contract? Para sa akin, the fact remains na the Vice President is part owner of GenCorp. And under Article 7 and Section 13, the Vice President should not own or participate in any business company for that matter. Yun na po. It's the Presiding Officer. Thank you po.

Thank you, Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo. Also for the record, Chair would like to state what the Chair stated earlier. While indeed there is a declaration, an admission in the Salon of the Vice President that she is a shareholder, stockholder of GenCorp, The witness presented from the SEC stated that the Vice President is not a shareholder or stockholder based on the records submitted by GenCorp to the Securities and Exchange Commission. So that is one difference that still has to be reconciled at some point.

The Senate President is recognized for his interjection. Thereafter, Senator Aimee. Thereafter, Senator Judge Joel Villanueva. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Good morning, Mr. Speña.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Sa PhilGEPS ba nakikita niyo yung resulta ng bidding?

Not unless na-upload po. Doon po talaga kami nagre-refer. Dependent po sa procuring entity.

Like in this case, itong pinag-uusapan natin, GenCorp, narinig ko kanina sa inyo merong mga bidding, meron small... Small Value Procurement. Doon sa bidding ba, nakita nyo kung merong ilan ang nag-participate na bids? Magkano yung kanilang mga bidding price?

The PhilGEPS system does not reflect po doon. Yung mode of modality lang po yung nakikita.

So nakita nyo lang bidding pero hindi nyo nakita kung ilan ang nag-participate sa bidding?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay.

Pagdating doon sa Precio. Like for example, in this case nga, GenCorp, at nakita ko last week, mga pagkain yung kanilang binili. Nakikita niyo ba kung magkano yung presyo nung kanilang biniling pagkain?

The system could only reflect po kung ano yung pinasok ng procuring entity such as yung ABC po, yung approved budget of contract and yung contract awarded amount po.

Correct. So nakikita nyo yung presyo?

Yun lang pong dalawang amount na

yun, Your Honor.

Okay. Yung ABC tsaka yung approved contract.

Yes, Your Honor.

Yung ABC tsaka yung panalong presyo.

Yes,

Your Honor.

Diba?

Doon sa panalong presyo, tinitignan nyo ba kung ito ay tamang presyo or within the range ng mga binibili nila?

Not part na po ng mandate na ginagawa.

Hindi nyo na nakikita

yun. Okay. And then binabasa ko yung section 47 ng RA 9184 tsaka section 81 ng RA 12009. Nakasulat dito mayroong sworn affidavit kung may conflict of interest o hindi. Dapat mag-submit yung bidder at sabihin niya wala akong conflict of interest. Yan ba ay nakikita rin ng field JEPs?

Hindi po,

Your Honor.

So hindi nyo na nakikita kung yung compliance sa mga batas ay nako-comply?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay. And then, pakiulit nga ulit kasi hindi na-flash to last week, pero ilan ang contract out of the 35.8 million, ilan doon ang... Bided, and ilan doon ang negotiated?

There are 49 contracts.

Out of the 49 po, for public bidding po. The rest po, puro small value procurement na po.

For

public bidding. And then the rest are small value.

Small

value for procurement na, Your Honor.

Dito sa small value procurement, tinitignan niyo ba yung presyo? Kung tama o hindi?

Hindi na rin po part ng function ng...

Kasi small value, di ba, negotiated yan eh? Diba ang diretsyon negotiation na yan? Tama?

Not really particularly knowledgeable with that sir.

Pero nakikita ba yung ina-upload nila sa small value procurement, nakikita yung presyo doon ng mga produkto?

Once uploaded, sa ina-upload po mga dokumento, nakikita

naman po doon. Nakikita nyo na. At tinitignan nyo ba kung ito ay mataas o mababa?

Apart po sa EGP, sir, hindi naman

po kami nagtitingin ng mga dokumento talaga. We are merely the repository

ng mga documents po, Your Honor.

Alright, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr. Sopena.

Thank

you, Your Honor.

Next would be Senator-Judge Aimee Marcos. You are recognized, ma'am. You may proceed. When you're ready, you have two minutes.

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Sopena.

Tatanong lang po. Phil Jepps does not, merely on the notice of award, establish which shareholder, which director, which officer personally negotiated or participated in the transaction. Wala yun sa dokumento ninyo.

Wala po. I

see. So yung records din ninyo, hindi rin nagsasabi kung si Vice President Sara ay officer, director, shareholder, or beneficial owner ng GenCorp? Doon sa exact date ng kada transaksyon. Tama?

Hindi po namin nakikita, Your Honor.

At kinakailangan siguro yung corporate records nito para malaman doon sa period na nakasaad dahil sa inyo hindi naman ito pinapakita. Tama po ba?

You

are correct, Your Honor.

Okay. And wala kayong personal knowledge katulad ng sinabi mo kanina na Si VP Sara nag-participate sa preparasyon o submission ng mga bids ng GenCorp, diba?

Tama. No personal knowledge po, Your Honor.

Okay. So, neither do you have any personal knowledge kung siya yung nag-negotiate ng mga kontrata at bidding nito? Tama po ba?

Correct po, Your Honor.

Okay. So, dun sa award document at notice of award, lahat ng papeles na dumaan sa inyo, Hindi mo masasabi kung si VP Sara Duterte ay tumanggap ng anumang bahagi ng contract price.

No personal knowledge po.

Thank you very much, Mr. Sopena.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you. Before calling on Senator Joel Villanueva, may

I ask Congressman Defensor, Congressman Barber, to kindly nudge Kong Benny a bit? It seems he's tired.

He may want to rest somewhere but at least not right behind the witness.

Your Honor, I think he's praying for us.

I doubt that. He's

praying for the prosecution, Your Honor.

Senator-Judge, Joel Villanueva is recognized. You have two minutes. It's been a long day, I guess, because you just approved the budget last week. You may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. Senate President.

Mr. Witness, kayo na po, binanggit niyo, kahit na sa being lowest calculated and responsive bid or offer, hindi niyo po nakikita kung may competition ito, yung presyo, kung ilan niyong nagbibid. Tama po.

Correct po, Your Honor.

So, pwede niyo po bang sabihin sa amin, ilang beses po naging sole responsive bidder? O sole submitted quotation ang GenCorp?

I have no record po or the full list po kung ilang beses po siyang nagiging.

So wala po kayong record doon?

Sa dami po ng awards, wala po kayong nakikita na ang PhilGEPS po paulit-ulit na GenCorp ang napipili ng parehong procuring entity? Office or end user? Para sa magkakatulad na produkto?

Naka-indicate po ito sa mga ina-upload na documents ng procuring entity. Pero as to the electronic data itself, sir, wala po. Kaya pag nagda-download kami, hindi po namin siya nakikita yung ganun pong information.

So, pero Marlin, you would agree with me na repeated awards are not automatically unlawful?

When it comes to legality, I am not really... Pero

yung frequency, product similarity, timing, competition are relevant to transparency and possible preferential patterns. In

my personal opinion, yes po.

So may red flags po ba ang PhilGEPS para makita na unusually repetitive awards o repository lang talaga po kayo?

Your Honor, actually we are currently developing those features bago pong dinidevelop namin na procuring system. So the current procuring system wala pa po. However, yung dinidevelop po namin ngayon kasama na po yung mga ganyang features, Your Honor.

So gusto ko lang maintindihan, kung hindi po nagbe-verify ang PhilGEPS at wala rin pong naisasagawa na post-qualification or independent validation of ownership, beneficial ownership, at relationship declarations ng GenCorp, paano po nakakatiyak ang gobyerno na kumpleto, tama, at tunay po ang mga dokumentong isinusumite at walang direct or indirect personal... Familiar or financial or business relationship sa head of procuring entity ang sino mang opisyal o sangkot sa procurement?

Your Honor, siguro po. Yung upon approval po ng NGPA 12009, PSDBM po approved po ng budget for recreation of a new procurement system which align po sa 12009 which kasama po rito yung

Detection po ng mga collusion and red tagging. And yung system po itself ngayon, the modernized PhilGepps, through the open data portal po, available po yung mga information publicly. And it can be viewed po ng kahit sino sa website po ng PhilGepps, included sa procurement dashboard. na mada-download po ng mga public yung aggregated data. Tapos, nandun din po sa procurement dashboard included and ine-enhance po namin yung beneficial owner's table. Meron po nung information for BO which kasama po sa mandate ng field job system under the 12009 and the open data portal po.

Yung mga enhancement po for the upcoming na bagong procurement system.

Ngunit sa ngayon,

tama

po bang sabihin sir na yung procurement records ay nagpapakita lamang ng mga deklarasyong isinusumite ng bidder, ngunit hindi po ito nagpapatunay na tama o kompleto ang mga deklarasyong ito?

Mga government agencies na ay gagamitin na po yung bagong itong isang modernized system natin, yung e-bidding po. So lahat po ng procurement would be through electronic na po.

Sa darating na sistema.

Actually, we have po eh.

Kasi wala akong verification eh.

We have the modernized PhilGEPS actually, sir. Yung 49 awarded contracts po kasi... were created and posted under the PhilGEPS 1.5. We are also maintaining the modernized PhilGEPS na ginagamit din po ng iba na nandun po yung e-bidding process. Ang e-bidding po, this will capture the end-to-end activity ng government agencies starting from the annual procurement plan up to the contract management. Some of the government agencies are utilizing it. Kagaya po ng Office of the President, ginagamit po nila yung e-bidding. Sir,

but with all due respect, but on this case, wala akong verification. Ang hirap po sabihin sa publiko na may maaasahan po kami na natukoy o maiwasan po yung anumang direct or indirect conflict of interest.

With this case, I agree.

That's so

unfortunate. Sir, last question ko na lang po. Susugan ko yung tinanong niya SP Win kanina. Doon po sa mga... Purchase request o award na binanggit niyo po yung mga small value awards dun sa GenCorp. May makikita po ba kayo dun na hinate sa magkakahiwalay na amounts o pag pinagsama nila ay maaaring lumampas doon sa applicable threshold yung ginawa po nila? May makikita po ba kayong ganun?

Meron po sa record dyan ang isang bid notice. May iba't ibang line item. However, iba-iba po yung category niya, Your Honor.

I-clarify ko lang po yung question. Doon sa 15 na binanggit niyo po na small value procurements, ilan po yung magkakapareho o magkakalapit ang product description, end user, delivery period, at procurement date?

For

the title itself po, Your Honor, same lang na catering services, food and catering services. Pero yung publish and award date naman po is iba-iba po.

And again, wala kayo nakikita dyan na hinate o magkakahiwalay yung amounts para lamang po lumampas dun sa... para hindi po... Masabi na lumampas dun sa applicable threshold. Just to see if there are...

Based on the records ko lang. Wala naman po Your Honor

Last na lang po. May ibidensya po ba sa PhilGeps na ang pagkakahati ay ginagawa upang umiwas po sa competitive bidding? Or wala po kayong sapat na record para sabihin po yun?

The system po is designed so I think po... Hindi po inaalaw ng system pag may mga splitting na gano'n.

So makikita niyo po?

Embedded sa system, hindi po aalaw pag gano'n.

Hindi iaalaw pagka ginawa po nila yun para lang umiwas dun po sa competitive bidding.

Yes, Your Honor.

Salamat po for that clarification. Thank you.

Senator-Judge, Ervin Tulfo is recognized. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Gino'ng witness, nung nangyayari po itong Itong mga kontrata na ito. Wala ko kayo nakikitang problema? Kaya lumulusot po ito?

During the process po ng bidding, hindi po kami visible or personally knowledgeable po. Kailan

nyo lang nalaman na may problema? Pinatawag na kayo sa Congress?

Yes, when we received po yung sabina.

So, ibig sabihin kahit may glaring na...

Nangyayari na hindi nasusunod ayon sa batas ang isang bidding, et cetera. Okay lang, lumulusot lang, lumulusot? Unless kung kayo ay... wala ba kayong kapangyarihan? Teka muna, questionin, teka muna, may problema ito, boss. Or tell your supervisor na may problema ho ito, boss. Ano ba ang nangyayari dito? Anong gagawin natin?

Your Honor, for our office po, kasi we are merely the repository of the data. So sa ongoing

ng kontrata, wala kayong alam? Tama

po, Your Honor.

So ngayon na lang ninyo nalaman dahil may nagtanong na po, nagtanong na po ang House of Representatives, ang Committee on Justice, dalit sa impeachment?

Yes, po, Your Honor.

So ibig sabihin, Sir, meron ba kayang mga nangyayaring ikang anomalya na hindi nyo lang alam kasi repository lang kayo?

For the oversight function po, it's not... The mandate po of the PhilGips, Your Honor.

Okay. Pero kayo ngayon, sir, puwede niyo namang reviewhin yung mga nakaraan na mga, ika nga, mga kontrata, projects, hindi lang po itong tungkol sa Davao but other government projects. Di ba wala kayong ganoong mandato na silipin, tingnan, baka napakadami na o halos lahat ng ating mga proyekto ay may problema?

Hindi po parte ng mandato pero kadalasan po kasi sa division namin we receive various requests po talaga when it comes to procurement data. Nire-request po ng mga iba't ibang agencies na pinaprovide po namin sa kanila.

So ngayon po wala kayong planong maybe reviewin man lang?

Sir, hindi po ninyo mandato. Kasi may mga incidents po tayo, sir, di po ba, na maraming ikang graft and corruption cases. Case in point, yung flood control po na yan. Na because hindi po ninyo, dahil hindi ninyo mandato, kaya hindi po ninyo na-check. Bakit kaya po magkusa na lang yung inyong departamento mismo? Dahil bagamat repository kayo, pwede nyo silipin.

May, Your Honor, meron pong, I think na, proper agency na could address those. What I'm

pointing at is kayo mismo magkusa lang. Hindi po pwede dahil wala sa mandato ninyo to check yung mga hawak ninyong mga files. Basta pag dumating sa inyo, ilalagay nyo lang niya sa isang gilid. Ipa-file na lang ninyo hanggat sa walang humingi.

It's electronically filed po. Nasa database lang po siya. Hindi naman po siya yung hard copy talaga, Your Honor.

Yeah, pero you cannot? You cannot go through? I mean, silipin man lang?

Not part of the division's function po kasi we have other po na duties that we are also fulfilling.

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

Thank you, Senator-Judge Irwin. Senator-Judge Lacson to avail of his first round. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes when you're ready.

Thank you.

I'm not asking any question, Mr. Presiding Officer, but this is a very short manifestation based on my observation.

You may

proceed, sir.

The way probably and probably some of the non-lawyers among the senator-judges, particularly my seatmate, Senator Lapid, understand the questions posited by the Defense Council is that the objective of the cross was to create an iota of doubt, no matter how technical and small, to create the impression that the threshold of establishing guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, which I believe is not the case in this impeachment trial, Mr. Presiding Officer. Hindi po ito, let me clarify and emphasize na hindi po ito prejudgment. Ang hangat ko lang po is baka pwede mag-adjust kayo ng inyong defense strategy. Kasi I can speak for myself, pagdating sa masyadong technical at yung impresyo na nagsisilip lang ng napakalit na butas, mukhang hindi po nagre-register. So marami na rin ko yung naipunto in the course of the trial na magaganda. Pero pag nag-resort tayo sa yung we're trying to observe, kasi we were talking between kami dalawa. Yan ang observation namin. Parang hindi masyadong re-register. Parang napakalilit na butas na masyadong technical, medyo hindi po tumatalab. Maraming salamat po.

Noted, Senator Lacson. Thank you very much. Finally, Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo for his interjection.

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

Mr. Witness, merong 15 contracts ang GenCorp. Ano na sa record? Yes. nasa record ng PhilGEPS para sa mga small value procurements. Now, nabanggit ng 15, magkano yung per contract dun sa 15 ang value?

Per

contract, I'm not sure, Honor.

That is correct.

Each?

Each. So, meron pong 5,143,500 pesos and meron pong 6,277,500 pesos. Meron din po rito na 9,800,000, 8,400,000, and yung meron po rito 500,000, 500, 1,600 pesos, 400,414 pesos.

Okay, that's enough. So, lampas sa 2,000,000?

Yung apat po na nauna, lagpas po.

Kasi under Republic Act No. 12009 o New Government Procurement Act, Amount involved shall not exceed 2 million. So may binagat ka 4 million. Ano po ang iba?

Correct po. Those are conducted through public bidding.

So sumobra-sobra pa?

Pag public bidding po, if I remember it correct, above 2 million is allowed po.

Ah, that is public bidding. Hindi ba yan sa small value procurement?

Hindi po. Ang small value po, your honor.

Okay,

yung tinatanong kayo sa small value.

Ah, yung small value po, yung 500,000. 500, 1,600 pesos, 414,000. Wala namang pong lumagpas ng 2 million po sa 11 na small value.

Nalito ko sa tanong ko. It's okay. Now, sabi ni Presiding Officer, I think kung pwede, we have to resolve this right here right now, kung pwede. Kasi sa SAL-N ni VP Sara, which is a sworn document, she reiterated in that SAL-N, na she's part owner of GenCorp. On the other hand, sa SEC, wala siyang record na nagmamayari. So, sinong paniniwalaan natin dito? Sino nagsisinungaling? Or is it because yung SEC ay nagkaroon ng oversight? Or si VP Sara, she was being honest, kaya nilagay niya talagang she owns it? So, anong susundin natin dito, Mr. Presiding Officer?

Sir?

Psst!

Tulog ka na. Joke.

Dilat yung mata ko. I'm sorry. Yes, Senator-Judge Raffi.

Kasi sabi ko

kanina, to repeat my question, sasali ni BP Sara, which is a sworn document, nakalagay doon na part-owner siya ng

GenCorp. Kasi sabi mo, wala sa SEC. And paulit-ulit natin napakinggan yan, sino paniniwalaan natin ngayon? Anong pagbabasehan natin ang ating paniniwala?

'Yun bang sa sinumpang salaysay ni VP Sara sa SALN niya na she's part owner of GenCorp, o 'yung sa SEC wala siyang pangalan doon?

That

is up for the parties to prove and or disprove at the proper time, Your Honor. The prosecution presented two witnesses that made conflicting claims. I expect them to clarify this matter before they rest their case and when the time for the defense, the respondent rather. will present their evidence in chief. I expect them to address this issue as well. Paumanhin, hindi pa natin kayang sagutin ng deretso yan at hindi ko pa rin kayang sagutin ng deretso. Magdedepende yan sa ebidensya ipapresentan ng mga kabilang panig sa akmang panahon.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

No other Senator-Judge registered to make interjections. Chair will now excuse Mr. Yes, Honorable Luistro.

Very quick manifestation only. In relation

to what, counsel?

This

is just to correct. The transcript of records, Your Honor.

Yes, please,

Counsel.

Earlier, I said that the procurement law does not explicitly provide about conflict of interest. I stand corrected, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, the Honorable Senate President, Sherwin Gatchalian, is very much correct when he said that there must be disclosure of relationship of the merchant to any of the officials of the procuring entity, Your Honor. And I totally agree with the Honorable Senator Rafi Tulfo when he made mention, when he implied the three violations, Your Honor. Owning business, operating business, and conflict of interest, Your Honor. In fact, ito ho kung sa larong tong-it, three hits po ito. That is all, Your Honor.

Chair will exclude that last part. From the comment of the lead prosecutor.

We submit,

Your Honor.

Your Honor.

Yes, Attorney Ravi.

We just want to put on record or remind the prosecution we defer to the ruling of this impeachment court not to make conclusions of law or conclusions of fact or to supplement the testimony of the witness, Your Honor.

The ruling was already made by the Chair.

Mr. Supena, tapos na po ang inyong pagtestigo. Maraming salamat po sa inyong oras at panahon at salamat po sa pagsagot sa mga katanungan na magkabilang partido, gayon din, ng mga miyembro ng hukumang ito. Maraming salamat po. Your excuse, sir.

Thank you, Your Honors.

Before we call on the next witness, whom you can situate already, the OSA, the Clerk of Court is directed to situate, Mr., rather, Police Major Sangalang.

Kindly situate him to the witness stand.

Your Honor, please, we are yielding to the Head Prosecutor, the Honorable Ridon.

While you are doing that and while we are situating, Police Major Sangalang, Chair would like to place on record that we are in receipt of a letter from Mayor Sebastian Duterte of the City of Davao on even date, dated today.

I'm requesting that, among others, That he be given time as he requires substantial time to gather, organize, authenticate, and reproduce the subpoena documents and asks that he be allowed to attend instead of today, tomorrow, and on Wednesday, for him to be allowed to attend on September 29 and 30, that is tomorrow and Wednesday, which is already covered by the subpoena issued to him. The Presiding Officer grants the request of Mayor Duterte to appear Tomorrow and Wednesday, which again is covered by the subpoena issued already, so there is no need to issue another subpoena. So I presume, Honorable Ridon, after Police Major Sangalang, we will be presenting tomorrow, Mayor Sebastian Duterte.

That is

correct, Your Honor.

Kindly turn on the mic of Honorable Ridon.

That is correct, Your

Honor.

Okay, with respect to the other requests for subpoena, we will act on that before we adjourn today.

Bago po isalang si Police Major Sangalang, we wanted to reiterate si Atty. Gary Samonte, hindi na po isasalang, yung pong PhilHealth witness.

Share hereby recalls the subpoena issued to Mr., what's his name again? Atty. Samonte. Mr. Samonte, as manifested and moved by the Council for the Panel of Prosecutors. So ordered.

Your Honor, please. Bago po isalang si Mr. Sangalang, maybe we can break for lunch already so that the direct testimony can be continuous instead of breaking for lunch later.

Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo.

Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. Matanong ko lamang po at saka sa ating prosecution. Ano ang kinalaman nga pala ng Major Sangalang sa issue na ito? Marami po kasi kami nagtatanong ano ba kasama rin po ba ito sa unexplained wealth, hidden wealth ng ating vicepresidente. Can somebody tell me sa prosecution?

Allow the chair. Sa pagkakaunawa ko, pinapresento ang testigo nito para patotohanan ang pagmamayari, di o mano, ng ikalawang pangulo ng samotsaring mga armas na siguro ko ay bibigyan nila ng halaga. Sa pagsuma ng kanyang SAL-N ayon sa kanilang pre-trial brief.

Ito po ba ang mga armas na ito? Mga gold-plated or may mga diamond po ba ito?

Hindi ko po masasagot. Mga bala po ay

diamante.

Hindi ko po masasagot. Yung testigo lamang po ang makakasagot niyan kung sakasakali. We will hear the purpose for which this witness is being offered once the offer is made, Senator-Judge Irwin.

Maraming salamat po.

Doon pa lang natin makikita kung katanggap-tanggap nga ba o hindi. At kung hindi katanggap-tanggap, the gentleman can make the appropriate motion at that time.

Maraming salamat po sa paliwanag na yan, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you po.

Before

we pause on our lunch recess, can we place the witness under oath already, sir, that we at least are able to do that? Kindly stand up, Police Major Sangalang. Is it Sangalang or Sangalang?

Sangalang, sir.

Sangalang. Okay.

Please raise your right hand. You, Joericson Sangalang. Do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Vice President Cyrus Jim Ramon Duterte shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God.

Kindly sit down. Naunawaan niyo po inyong pinanumpaan ng Police Major Sangalang?

Opo, Your Honor.

Mag lunch break lang muna tayo. So kumain po kayo. May lugar yata kayo para kumain.

We shall resume upon the request of Senator-Judge Lacson at 12.30. And we shall take a lunch recess and our lunch break. When we resume, we shall listen to the direct examination of the witness by the counsel for the panel of prosecutors. The court is in recess.

Honorable Ridon,

who will be presenting the witness? Kindly situate Police Major Sangalang to the witness stand.

Who will be presenting the witness, Honorable Ridon?

Yes, Your Honor. We are ready to proceed with direct examination of the witness. The prosecutor who will conduct the direct is Honorable Isabel Maria J. Zamora of the Lone District of San Juan City.

The Honorable Zamora is recognized on the part of the respondent.

Your Honor, I am turning over to Carlo Joaquin P. Narvasa.

Attorney Narvasa, what's your nickname?

CJ, Your Honor.

CJ.

Good afternoon.

So, Attorney Zamora, the Honorable Zamora and Attorney Narvasa.

Nag-change costume ka ba o naka-jacket ka lang kanina?

Naka-jacket po ako kanina, sir.

Ah, okay. Akala ko nag-change costume ka eh.

Parang nagbago eh.

Forgive me for that, Police Major Sangalang. Honorable Zamora, you may make your offer, ma'am, when you're ready.

Thank you, Your Honors. Good afternoon. We offer the testimony of Police Major Joericson Sangalang. First, to prove that the witness is a police major of the Philippine National Police assigned to the Firearms and Explosives Office as its Chief of the Records Section and is a member of the Firearms Classification Board. Two, to prove that the PNP Through the FEO, processes and approves applications for the issuance of licenses to qualified individuals and causes the registration of firearms in accordance with Republic Act No. 10591 and its implementing rules and regulations. 3. To prove that the respondent Vice President Sara Duterte Carpio and her husband, Atty. Mance Carpio, both possess licenses to own and possess firearms, LTOP. Type 5, and are classified as certified gun collectors. 4. To prove that the Vice President and her husband maintain a hobby in gun collecting by owning, possessing, and maintaining at least 50 firearms, which includes pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns, with a total value of at least 7 million pesos. 5. To prove such other relevant allegations and to identify and authenticate relevant documents.

Comment on the part of Attorney CJ?

Thank you, Your Honor. First, Your Honor, the defense registers its continuing objection to the introduction of testimony and documents in relation to Attorney Carpio. This is in relation to this Honorable Court's July 2026 ruling. However, Your Honor, we do not request the Honorable Court for any ruling today, but merely ask that our objection be noted.

Second, Your Honor, as to the fourth purpose, the witness would be incompetent to testify on any supposed value of the firearms as he is testifying as Chief of the Firearms and Explosives Office who has no expertise in appraisal. Still on the fourth purpose, Your Honor, we object also to the amount that the

Prosecution has offered for the same reason as previously stated, Your Honor.

Any comment, Honorable Zamora?

Your Honor, as regards the first objection, the continuing objection as regards Attorney Manassas Manscarpio, the Honorable Presiding Officer has time and again ruled that the assets of Attorney Manscarpio should be included. In the deliberations before this Honorable Impeachment Court, considering that the assets of Atty. Man Scarpio form part or should be also stated in the Salen of the Vice President. This is in tune with the ruling of this Honorable Court as regards the Salen and the financial records of the Vice President and Atty. Man Scarpio. As regards The objection to the fourth offer that the witness is incompetent to testify because his functions do not include an appraisal or the appraisal of revolvers. He will be testifying based on the records of his office or the FEO as well as What is stated in the certification that he will be presenting before this honorable court in the same vein that the amount stated in the offer is the same amount that is stated in the certification that will be presented by the witness, Your Honors.

Just

a quick rebuttal, Your Honor.

Yes, Attorney CJ.

Your Honor, I just would like to clarify the record. This Honorable Court has only ruled on the first issue once, on the 20th of July, Your Honor, and not time and again. Second, Your Honor, I would like to thank the Honorable Zamora for her admission that the appraisal of any firearms are not the functions of the witness. So I'd like to thank you.

Before we continue, earlier the Honorable Erwin Tulfo raised a question which I believe is more proper now after the witness, after rather the member of the panel of prosecutors has made her offer. Would the Honorable Tulfo or, yes, like to reiterate his earlier query, cum manifestation?

Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, kagaya po ng tanong ko kanina, ano po ang relevance ng magiging statement ni Major Sangalang dito sa pinag-uusapan natin tungkol po sa hidden wealth or unexplained wealth? Kaya nga po kanina, though it was sort of a, yung question ko po is sort of a joke na may diamante ba, may gold ba yung baril na yan that we have to tackle all the firearms. Kung sasabihin na napakaraming firearms, marami naman po mga Pilipino, marami din mga firearms. Marami din po mga kolektor na mga baril, mga businessman, mga ika nga officials na... Maraming baril. So, I don't see the relevance here, Mr. Presiding Officer. But, what's your decision?

I

believe the Honorable Soto also intimated to the Presiding Officer his reservation with respect to this witness. Would Senator-Judge Soto care to elaborate?

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I was just asking our colleagues, the fellow Senator-Judges earlier that I think the offer that was going to be given and as given now and that Senator Turpo was asking earlier is if these were contained in the sal-in of the Vice President. Am I right, Mr. President?

I think that's the direction they are headed towards, Senator Soto.

The Honorable Zamora did not mention that in her offer.

Well, I leave it up to you because I have been reviewing my Sal-N also and I do not see anything there that says guns.

And you simply include it as part of personal property, I guess?

Yes, I usually do that and I do that myself in the personal properties. So I leave the question to the court,

Your

Honor.

The Honorable Zubiri was also expressing some sentiments earlier to the Presiding Officer. Will you kindly place it on record as well, Your Honor?

Yes, Mr. President. Actually, while we were having lunch, we were discussing in the lounge the importance of this particular... With due respect to Congresswoman Zamora, we're friends and all, but we just want to make sure of the relevance of this particular evidence because Many of us are firearms owners here, if not all members of the Senate. We usually put it under personal effects and personal properties, Your Honor, Mr. President. So, I don't see there's any violation that I feel would happen if they do that, if the Vice President had done that. I don't think it's that much weight. We're looking for the bigger evidence that they want to present. If

any.

If any. Sabi nga ni Senator Lacson, yung malaking paputok maging kwitis. Saan na

yung malaking putok umabot sa atomic bomb kung meron? Yan ang gusto po natin malaman. With due respect, of course, to the prosecution. Thank you.

Senator-Judge Allan Cayetano is recognized. On the subject matter, Senator-Judge Allan, yes.

Just to clarify the pleasure of our colleagues. So first, so basically the question is if the Honorable Major will testify on anything major. Secondly, whether the guns constitute a smoking gun or seriously, given the time that both parties said we want to use judiciously para matapos kaagad yung trial in a fair manner, that we will come up with a verdict acceptable to our people. I joined them, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. Senate President, if yun yung question na kung major ba to minor. Ang konti ko lang reservation is kung sana magkasundo yung prosecution at defense if we disregard this. Kasi I don't want the judges be the one to tell them what they can present and not. Unless nga we rule it's irrelevant. So just with that, I joined them in the sentiment. Yung konting caution lang. But I hope, yun nga, we can find a way that both the prosecution and defense will agree on something. So that... Yung process lang nung how we dispense with this issue, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Subiri.

Major Sangalang, you have a list of the firearms registered in the name of the Vice President and her spouse?

Yes, Your Honor.

Counsel, Attorney CJ, are you willing to stipulate as to the list?

No, Your Honor. We have yet to receive any.

You haven't seen the list?

None, Your Honor.

If I give you time to look at the list, would you be in a position to stipulate? I'm headed towards excluding this witness, counsel.

Your Honor.

Hold

on, Honorable Zamora.

To be quite candid, Your Honor, even if we were given time to peruse any list that the good Major will be presenting, we believe that this witness is irrelevant. Whatever he would state, it would be irrelevant. So we have the same reservations as the good senators.

Yes, Honorable Zamora, I hope you see where we're coming from. Even assuming he can put a price on the firearms that the spouses own at 7 million, that's well within the SAL-N she submitted of, I believe, 88 million as of the latest.

And there is no requirement to declare the firearms as a separate category in the SAL-N. Yes, Honorable Zamora, can you respond?

Actually,

Your Honor, if I may manifest, the guidelines for the SAL-N actually require a statement of the firearms. Under Section 34, it states there that personal property registered with the appropriate government agency such as but not limited to motor vehicles, boats, aircraft, and firearms shall be declared individually.

Your Honor, if I may

respond,

kindly let her finish.

Sorry, apology, I thought you

were done.

Your Honor, also as regards the certification, the list that was mentioned earlier, the Police Major Sangalang has the certification with the list of the firearms of the respondent as well as her husband.

The list of firearms.

The list of firearms are with Police Major Sangalang and we believe that it was issued yesterday.

How about the value of 7 million? What would be the basis of Major Sangalang in proving the value of the Firearms Council?

Your Honor, that is in the list as well.

That he produced?

He will be presenting the list or the certification before this honorable court.

And the values are stated there. And if questions will be propounded to the good gentleman, then he will be able to respond as to where the values are taken.

Major Sangalang, you are in a position to state the amount or the value of each firearm?

Yes, Your Honor. It is listed in our certification.

On the basis of what? Acquisition value or fair market value?

It's on our... Market Survey, as of the current price, sir.

What if the gun was given to her?

If the gun was given to her, how would the value be relevant? By way of acquisition, sir,

By way of acquisition, sir, it will be a donation, sir.

So, hindi kailangan isama?

Naka-check na po namin yung records niya and wala naman pong donation, sir.

Your witness, counsel, but may I remind you to kindly abbreviate it because as most of the senator-judges have mentioned, we find this witness not as convincing with respect to ill-gotten wealth as would be others, given at only the small value of this.

but also given that as stated by Senator-Judge Soto, these are not separately listed in other declarations of SAL-N by other officials. Yes, Attorney CJ.

Thank you, Your Honor. If I may just comment on the explanation of the Honorable Zamora. Your Honor, what she quoted was the 2025 CSC rules, which... do not have application to the silence of the Vice President as those will be applicable only for submissions beginning 2026, Your Honor. And also as regards the market value that the witness had already said, that again is irrelevant because what is pertinent, Your Honor, is the acquisition cost. So from the very beginning, The witness's testimony has proven to be no value.

With all due respect, of course.

Are you willing to stipulate with respect to the position of Police Major Sangalang?

Yes,

Your Honor.

And that he will be testifying as to the firearms that are licensed to the Vice President and her spouse based on their records?

Yes, Your Honor.

So that foregoes with offers number 1 and 2.

Honorable Zamora, you may proceed with your direct examination. In relation to offers 3 and 4. If you may.

Thank you, Your Honors.

You may proceed, ma'am. And again, let's try to abbreviate the proceedings insofar as this witness is concerned. Let's try to finish them today. You may proceed, ma'am.

Your Honors, we will abbreviate our questions.

You may proceed to offer number 3 and 4 and so on.

Okay.

Mr. Witness, good afternoon. Mag-focus po tayo sa LTOP.

Ano pong iba't-ibang uri ng LTOP? Kung meron man.

Objection, Your Honor. Relevance.

I'll allow it, counsel. I know where she said that. She's trying to abbreviate the proceedings in accordance with the court's instruction. Please answer, Major Sangalang.

Meron po tayong dalawang classification ng LTAF. Yun po ay ang individual and juridical. Under the individual, meron po tayong limang types, Type 1 to 5. Sa Type 1 po ay maaari po siyang magkaroon ng hanggang dalawang firearms.

Sa Type 2, hanggang 5. Sa Type 3, hanggang 10. Sa Type 4, hanggang 15. At sa Type 5 po ay more than 15 firearms.

Base po sa records ng PNPFEO, ano po ang uri ng license na na-issue kay Vice President Sara?

Objection, Your Honor. No testimony has yet been made.

Your Honor, we're trying to abbreviate the proceedings.

We withdraw the objection, Your Honor.

Yes, with

your indulgence,

Attorney

CJ. Please, please continue, Honorable Zamora.

Again, Mr. Witness, base po sa record ng PNP-FEO, anong uri ng lisensya po kung meron man ang na-issue kay Vice President Sara?

Meron po siyang LTOP Type 5 po.

Okay.

At ano naman pong uri ng lisensya ang na-issue ng PNP-FEO kay Vice President Sara?

Atty. Man Scarpio.

LTOP Type 5 din po ma'am.

Okay, maraming salamat.

Puntahan lang natin yung LTOP Type 5. Compared with other LTOP Type 1, Type 4, what special requirement is sought from a Type 5 licensee kung meron ma'am?

Para po sa mga LTAP holder ng Type 3, Type 4 to Type 5 po, they are required to have a physical inspection of their vault. Kailangan po meron po talaga silang vault and nire-require po na i-inspect po ito.

Okay, thank you po. Puntahan po natin ang firearms ni Respondent Vice President Sara at ng kanyang asawa.

Batay po sa... Batay po sa records ng inyong tanggapan, ilang pong baril ang nakarehistro sa pangalan ni Vice President Sara.

Can

I check my records, Your Honor?

You may do so, Major Sangalang.

Si

Vice President Sara po ay merong 22 firearms,

meron po siyang 14 na pistol, dalawang revolver,

limang rifle, Of which, tatlo po doon ay class A light weapon and isa pong shotgun.

Binagit niyo po ang class A light weapon. Ano po ito?

Objection, Your Honor. Again, relevance.

Your Honor, we are talking about the firearms, Vice President.

I'll allow it. I'll allow it. I know out of habit, perhaps, Atty. CJ, you would, but I'll allow it. Please answer, Maj. Sangalang.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Ang class A light weapons po ay mga

baril na may caliber po hanggang 7.62 with automatic functions or fully automatic po sila.

Okay. Para sa kaalaman ng lahat, ano po ang may ibig sabihin ng fully automatic functions?

Yung firearms po na yun ay capable of burst of fire.

Ibig sabihin po nito pag kinalabit po natin yung gatilyo, sunod-sunod na po yung puputok.

Okay. At sino-sino ba po ang pwedeng magmayari ng firearms with fully automatic functions kung meron man?

Stated in Republic Act 10591, that is Section 10, only law enforcement agencies can acquire Class A light weapons, especially

PNP and AFP. However, For those individual na nakapag-acquire na po prior ng effectivity ng batas na ito, ay maaari pa rin pong ipagpatuloy ang kanilang pagkakaroon ng Class A light weapon.

Papayagan pa rin po silang mag-register. However, hindi na po ito pwedeng ilipat sa ibang LTAP holder. So, lifetime na po ang pagre-registration nila. Kung ayaw na po nila na ituloy ang...

Pagkakaroon ng baril na klase A light weapon, pwede naman po nila itong isurrender sa PNP.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Witness. So para lang po malinaw, batay sa inyong testimonya, tatlo

po

sa mga rifle na nakarehistro sa pangalan ni Vice President Sara ay fully automatic. Tama

ba po?

Yes, po.

Basta sa inyong records, Mr. Witness, ilan pong baril na nakarehistro sa pangalan ni Atty. Manz Carpio?

Your Honor, continuing authority for the Council. Assisting Councils may

approach the witness.

Thank you.

Si Atty. Manzcarpia naman po ay merong 29 firearms.

Meron po siyang 16 pistol, dalawang revolver, isang shotgun, sampung rifle, isa po doon ay class A light weapon, at meron din po siyang isang expired na firearm.

Thank you, Mr. Witness. Ano pong katibayan nyo kung meron man upang patunayan na ang ating Vice President ay may 22 na firearms, samantalang ang kanyang asawa ay may 29 na firearms?

Ito pong certification na dala ko, ma'am.

Okay.

Meron na rin po akong dala ng flash drive kung nais po natin ay flash a screen po.

Assisting Councils may approach from both parties.

Thank you, Your Honor. How many

copies did you bring, Major?

Two copies po, Sir, Your Honor.

Kindly give both parties a copy. Do you have a copy, Honorable Zamora?

Your Honor, no.

We have a...

Kindly give both assisting counsels a

copy. Later on, kindly furnish Honorable Zamora the court with a copy as well.

We will do that, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor.