September 29, 2026

The Senate President, the Presiding Officer, and Senator-Judges

of the Impeachment Court.

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 Robin Hood Padilla.

Audhu Billahi minasyaytanirrajim. Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Sa ngalan ng Allah, ang pinakamahabagin, ang pinakamawain. Ya Allah, ikaw lamang po ang al-alim, ang nakakaalam ng lahat. Ang al-hakim, ang pinakamahusay, pinakamatalino. Al-kabir, ang nakakabatid ng lahat. Al-basir, ang nakakakita ng lahat. Al-samih, Ang nakakarinig ng lahat. Ang al-hakam, ang kataas-taasang hukom. Ang al-adil, ang bukal ng katarungan. Ang al-havis, ang tagapamangalaga. Kami po ang mamamayang may kapangyarihan ay lumalapit sa iyo na nagmamakaawa para sa iyong banal na saklolo upang mapangalagaan ang pinakamataas na batas ng aming lupain. Ya Allah! Hinihiling namin na iyong protektahan ang mga pangunahing karapatan at kalayaan na nakasulat sa aming kasunduan. Ipagtanggol mo ang aming karapatan sa buhay, kalayaan, ari-arian at makatwirang paglilitis. Tanuran mo ang aming kalayaan sa pamamahayag, pananampalataya at mapayapang pagtitipon. Hayaan mong ang mga karapatang ito ay maging isang sagradong kalungan para sa bawat mga mayan, lalo na ang mga mahihirap, inaapi at walang kapangyarihan, upang mailigtas sila laban sa paniniil, pagmamalabis sa kapangyarihan at pang-aabuso. Ya Allah, igawad mo sa mga hukom na senador ang iyong patnubay.

Ganoon din sa aming mga hukom, Mahistrado, Tagapagtanggol at mga Pinuno ng Batas. Magtanim ka ng banal na takot sa kanilang mga puso upang sila ay mamuno ng may lubos na integridad, walang kinikilingan at may tapang. Bigyan mo sila ng karunungan na bigyang kahulugan ng batas na may katotohanan habang tinatanggihan ng anumang suhul, pampolitikang panggigipit at personal na interes. Gawin mo silang mga instrumento ng iyong ganap na katarungan upang matiyak na ang mga walang sala ay mapapawalang sala at ang mga nagkasala ay maparusahan ng walang pagkaantala. Bigyan mo ang aming mamamayan at mga hukuman ng lakas na labanan ng pagkasira ng katotohanan. Hayaan mo ang saligang batas ay manatiling matatag at hindi dumaranas ng kompromiso. Bilang isang tanglaw ng katotohanan, hak, at kapayapaan salam laban sa lahat ng nagtatangkang magpabagsak nito. Amen.

Amen. The Clerk of Court will now call the roll.

Roll call of members. Senator-Judge Aquino. Senator-Judge Cayetano Alan. Senator-Judge Cayetano Pia. Senator-Judge Dela Rosa. Senator-Judge Ejercito. Senator-Judge Estrada. Senator-Judge Go.

Senator-Judge, Ontiveros, 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 18 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 minutes of the, rather, the Journal of September 28, 2026 of the Senate Citizen Impeachment Court. and shall consider the same as approved.

The clerk will please read the case before, call the case before the impeachment court.

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

Appearances of the parties.

Good morning, Your Honors. Good morning to our colleagues in the defense. We are ready. Same appearance, Your Honor.

Thank you. Attorney

Sheila?

Good morning, Your Honors. Same appearance for the respondent of case.

Honorable Diokno, who will present the witness, Mayor Duterte, this morning?

Before I yield the floor to one of the members of the council for the prosecution panel, may I know first, Your Honor, if the witness has submitted any documents to the Honorable Court in accordance with the subpoena?

It would appear that...

It's still with him, counsel, but I believe he has it with him, and we have a...

We have a USB of the documents which we are printing as of the moment.

If that is the case, if you're honest please, could we be given a few minutes to peruse those documents before we begin with the direct examination?

The documents seem to be voluminous, about a hundred pages, counsel. Would you like to start while we're printing it? And we can pause once we reach the point that you will be needing to review the documents. Atty. Sheila?

We also would need time to examine the documents.

We will give both parties a copy. The clerk of court is directed to kindly print the copies. Rather, two copies. Make that three. One for the court and one for the parties each. In regard to the documents brought by Mayor Sebastian Duterte. But in the meantime, counsel, can you proceed with other preliminary matters? As I understand, you will anyway seek to establish him as a hostile witness, I understand?

Yes, Your Honor. May I ask that the court recognize Attorney Theodore Te, a member of the counsel for the prosecution panel.

So we can proceed with the preliminary matters with the permission of both parties and then call a brief recess in order for the parties to view the documents. Hopefully, we can declare early recess for lunch so the parties can go over it over lunch and we can save on time on the time of the court and proceed with the direct and cross perhaps after lunch. Atty. Sheila, who will be representing the respondent?

It will be Atty. Justine Nicole Gular.

So, Attorney Ted and Attorney Justin.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Good morning, Your Honor. Thank you.

Good morning, Attorney Ted. Long time no see.

Same here, Your Honor.

Kindly make your offer, counsel.

Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court. Rather,

counsel, forgive me. May we call on Mayor Sebastian Duterte. Can you kindly assist the mayor, the good mayor, to the witness stand? Kindly situate him to the witness stand. Before we allow

counsel to make an offer.

Atty. Te, would you like a platform?

No, Your Honor. I think you can hear me. So, I think that's more important.

Okay.

The clerk is directed to kindly administer the oath to the witness.

Sir, please raise your right hand. You, Sebastian Z. Duterte.

Sir,

just let me administer the oath. You, Sebastian Z. Duterte, 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 you God.

The witness nodded and answered in the affirmative. Upo na po kayo, Mayor Duterte. Naunawaan niyo po yung inyong pinanumpan. Kaugnayan niyong pagtestigo ngayong umaga.

Yes, Your Honor.

Salamat po.

Attorney Ted, you may proceed with your offer.

Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court. The testimony of the witness, Mayor Sebastian Zimmerman Duterte, is offered to prove the following matters. First, that he is a hostile witness as defined and subject to the necessary foundation to be laid by the prosecution for the honorable impeachment court to make such a declaration. Second, that he is familiar. with the corporation GenCorp Industries Inc., having approved awards on various dates within the years 2022 to 2025, specifically 15 contracts for food and catering services, and as mentioned in his extrajudicial statement, released on September 22, 2026. And in this connection, he will be asked to confirm his statement and to confirm the details of the awards made by the local government unit of Davao City to GENCORP. Third, that as the incumbent mayor of Davao City, he is the head of the procuring entity or HOPE. For all awards made by the city government of Davao City and for purposes relevant to this case, he was the HOPE. For the awards made from 2022 to 2025 to GenCorp. Fourth, that the total amount of the awards made to GenCorp Industries Incorporated from the City Government of Davao City from 2022 to 2025 was 34,216,900 pesos. Fifth, that he is familiar with a Mr. Jaime T. Cruz. Major stockholder of GenCorp, as the witness is himself a co-stockholder of Mr. Jaime T. Cruz in another corporation. Last, any other relevant matters to Article 2 of the impeachment complaint?

If I may comment...

Attorney Justin, comment?

Just a general objection, Your Honor. The defense would like to put on record that the testimony of the witness is irrelevant, Your Honor, as it has already been established through the testimony of a previous witness. particularly the PhilGEPs witness that all procurement transactions that was done between the local government of Davao City and GenCorp Industries, Inc. were entered into beyond the term of the vice president during the time that she was the mayor of Davao City, Your Honor. All other purposes offered by the counsel for the prosecution is subject to cross-examination, Your Honor.

Atty. Justin, would you be willing to stipulate that he is the hope? The head of the procuring entity of the City of Davao.

No

stipulation, Your Honor. Subject to cross.

Subject to cross. Any comments, Attorney Ted?

None, Your Honor.

In that case, you may proceed when you're ready, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Mayong buntag, Mayor.

Mayong buntag.

Morning. Mr. Witness, kayo po ang kasalukuyang mayor ng Davao City, di ho ba?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Kapatid po ninyo si Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. And in fact, she is your full-blood sister.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Mayor, do you recall having made statements describing the impeachment court in your interviews or statements to the media?

As of now, I do not remember anything, any statement pertaining to the impeachment trials.

If

I were to show you, Mr. Mayor, a screenshot that is attributed to you, would you be able to confirm to this impeachment court if indeed that was your statement?

Of

course.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May I be allowed, Your Honor, to show the witness a screenshot? of a quote that he made to Newswatch.

The

counsel for the panel of prosecutors may do so.

Thank you, Your Honor. May

we flash it on the screen?

I hope you can see this. It's a bit small.

Can we enlarge it?

Don't you have a copy of the actual statement?

Yes, Your Honor. If

we can show the witness as well, a printed copy, and if Counsel, Assistant Counsel can approach, Your Honor.

There is, you are being shown, Mr. Mayor, a printed copy of the screenshot with your face and your name. Do you confirm that this is your statement?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And in

fact, in that screenshot which you have identified, you are... You said there, and I quote, they are preventing the Vice President Inday Sara Duterte to run for the 2028 elections. Yan ang main reason ng impeachment na yan. You

affirm that, sir?

That is my perception.

Thank

you. Thank you, sir. Now, may I ask you, Mr. Mayor, are you familiar with the Facebook page Sebastian Bastet Duterte?

There are

a lot of similar named accounts on Facebook so I may have to see this one.

I see.

Thank

you. Are you familiar with the Facebook account Mayor Sebastian Bastet Duterte?

That could be my page.

Thank you. And so if you are shown a post from that Facebook page, you would be able to inform the Honorable Court. If that is your page or...

We can do this.

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. May I ask that the witness be shown a statement taken from the Facebook account Mayor Sebastian Duterte and assisting counsel is presenting the witness with a copy, a physical copy of the statement which is simply titled Statement September 21, 2026. Mr. Mayor, pinapakita po sa inyo yung statement na yan na lumabas sa Facebook page. Mayor Sebastian Duterte na may petsang September 21, 2026 na may pangalang Sebastian Z. Duterte at may photograph po ninyo. Nakikilala po ninyo yung statement na yan?

Yes, sir.

That is your statement, sir?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. And while this social media post It does

not contain a signature. It does contain your name. Do you affirm the truth of the contents of the statement?

Yes,

sir.

Thank you, sir. Now, let me call your attention to that statement and a highlighted portion.

And you can read along sir on the printed copy. The highlighted portion, let us all be vigilant in managing information and not fall prey to deceptive claims and orchestrated narratives engineered solely to serve political motives that suit personal interests and promote disunity. Do you see that in the copy sir?

Yes sir.

Thank you. Do you confirm that those are your words sir?

Yes sir.

Thank you. Calling your attention to another highlighted portion in the same statement. And I quote, This statement is issued ahead of any so-called lawful proceedings as I believe that the people, especially the people of the city of Davao, have the right to know. Unquote. Again, sir, do you confirm that those are your words? Those are your words, sir?

Yes,

sir.

Thank you, sir. And this characterization of quote, So-called lawful proceedings, unquote, is your description of the proceedings in the impeachment court so far?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

And you have not recalled or withdrawn this statement, sir?

No.

Thank you, sir. Now, just to ask you, Mr. Mayor, are you aware that your sister, the Vice President, who is the respondent here, has similarly characterized these proceedings in a similar way?

I have no idea.

Thank you.

Now, Mr. Witness, earlier, it was mentioned that a subpoena was issued to you. Do you confirm that, sir?

Yes, sir.

Do you confirm receipt of the subpoena, sir?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. And, Mr. Witness, you are here only because your attendance was compelled by subpoena. Is that correct?

Yes, I... I honor the subpoena.

Thank you. So you are here only because you were asked to be here.

Of

course.

By the subpoena.

Of

course.

Thank you, sir. Were it not for the subpoena, you would not, well, you would not voluntarily be testifying here, sir.

Of

course.

Thank you, sir.

May it please the court.

We believe, Your Honor, that with that foundation, the prosecution has laid the basis for this honorable impeachment court. To characterize the testimony of the witness as hostile or adverse to the prosecution, Your Honor, Mayor Duterte is the respondent vice president's younger brother from the same set of parents. He has publicly prejudged this case as political persecution. He characterizes the proceedings as so-called lawful.

Volunteered his participation as a witness for the prosecution and admits that he is present only because he is compelled to be here by the subpoena of the court. And therefore, Your Honor, with respect, we believe that the prosecution has satisfied the requirements under Rule 132, Section 13 of the Rules of Evidence.

Hostile witness. And for this reason, Your Honor, may we request that the impeachment court characterize the witness as a hostile witness and that the prosecution then be allowed to ask leading questions, Your Honor.

I think

that they were able to qualify the witness as a hostile witness, Your Honor. Number one, Your Honor, political statements do not establish hostility towards this court and there was no hostile statement made by the witness towards this court, Your Honor. Secondly, Your Honor, with respect to the question propounded by the good counsel from the prosecution implying that the witness today has taken the same position or alleged position of the respondent in respect to the proceedings of this court, is the conclusion That was derived merely from the prosecution's own perception, not by the testimony of the witness. And third, and most importantly, Your Honor, just because the witness attended this hearing by virtue of a subpoena and that he admitted that he would not otherwise testify before this court without that subpoena, does not qualify him as an unwilling, as one that is unwilling to testify, Your Honor. It is within his freedoms, Your Honor, to testify or not. with the impeachment court. In fact, he stated clearly that he honored the subpoena of this impeachment court. Clearly, Your Honor, none of the qualifications for a witness to be declared as hostile has been established by the preliminary questions of the counsel for the prosecution, with all due respect, of course.

Attorney

Ted?

Your Honor, we do believe, Your Honor, that we have satisfied it and therefore we submit this issue, Your Honor, to the impeachment court to determine. If

there is anything else, Sir Joinder, Attorney Justin?

None, Your Honor.

We trust in the discretion of the Court.

Court takes judicial notice of relevant laws, specifically 6713 and 3019, both Republic Acts, wherein should allegations of the prosecution be proven, it might expose the Mayor from liability together with the respondent after the fact. Also, the court takes notice, not judicial notice, but notice of the statement made and presented by Attorney Ted. To clarify before I proceed, Rule 18 does not apply to enrich the records as well and to inform the other parties. Rule 18 did not apply or does not apply to Mayor Duterte when he made his statement, although the subpoena was already issued. Because at that time, he was not yet a witness of this court. It is only now after he took his oath that he became a witness of the court and therefore Rule 18 applies to him as to the statements he will be making before this court this morning and this afternoon. Having set that aside, court therefore declares that the adverse interest of the witness has been established and declares him a hostile witness. Attorney Ted may ask leading questions but to clarify again, not misleading questions and to respect the rights of the accused as contained in Rule 132, Section 3 in the course of its direct examination because that does not give counsel, as you know, the right to violate the provisions of the rules in the Constitution with respect to a hostile witness.

Understood, Your Honor. Thank you.

So ordered. You may

proceed, counsel.

If we may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor.

Mayor Duterte, bilang kasalukuyang mayor ng Davao City,

Kayo po yung tinatawag na head of the procuring entity or HOPE under the procurement law. Tama po ba yan?

Yes,

sir.

Thank you. And, Mr. Mayor, bago kayo na upo bilang mayor ng Davao City sa kasalukuyan, kayo po ay nanilbihan bilang vice mayor ng Davao City. Tama po ba yan?

That was in 2019.

Yes. In 2019, yes. Thank you. And in fact, you were elected as vice mayor in the last 2022 election po?

No, this 2025.

2025, sorry. 2025 election.

In 2022, I was elected as mayor.

Mayor, okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for that clarification. Now, throughout your tenure, Mr. Mayor, as a local official, you have never served as a member of a BAC or a bids and awards committee of the city, no? No. Thank you. Now, Let's go to your designation as the HOPE or the head of the procuring entity for the City of Davao. Part of your responsibilities and authority would be to approve the Annual Procurement Plan or APP of Davao City. Yes. Thank you. And part of your authority is to designate members of the BAC.

Yes.

Thank you. And included in this authority would be the authority to approve shifts in modes of procurement or alternative modes of procurement.

Can you clarify this question?

Included in the authority as HOPE, head of the procuring entity, would be the authority to approve any shifts in methods of procurement or to engage in alternative modes of procurement as recommended by the BAC.

As long as it is under the law, yes, it is allowed by the law, yes.

Thank you. And finally, as the head of the procuring entity, you have the power to approve awards and issue a notice of award.

Yes.

Yes.

Let me ask you, Mr. Mayor, are you familiar with a certain attorney, Tristan Dwight Domingo?

Yes.

And he is the... Assistant City Administrator for Administration for the City of Davao.

That is correct.

Thank you. And, Atty. Domingo has authority to sign contracts for the city on your behalf. Is that not right?

Yes. I named him as my representative.

And that is pursuant to a delegated authority that you have given to him. Is that not right?

Yes.

Thank you, Your Honor. And, when Atty. Domingo signs an award, or a contract as recommended by the back. That is under your authority as mayor which you delegated to him. Is that not right? And also as head of the procuring entity. Is that not right? Thank you. And this delegation is made so that you do not need to sign every contract that is being bidded upon. Is that not right?

That

is true.

And this is so that you can have more time to do other things as mayor of Davao City. Is that not right? Thank you. You are aware personally, Mr. Mayor, of the contracts that Atty. Domingo signs on your behalf?

Not all.

Not all? So there are certain contracts that Atty. Domingo would sign that you would not have seen?

No. If it comes to my table, yes, I would be aware of it.

Thank you.

If

there is

an irregularity, then I would be aware of it.

I see. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. And so, in relation to the Contracts that have been mentioned, Your Honor, in your statement of September 21 that you alluded to, those contracts do not bear your signature. Is that not right?

That's correct.

They were signed by Attorney Domingo under the delegated authority. Thank you. Thank you so much. And that authority, Mr. Mayor, has not been revoked by you. No. So, Atty. Domingo still has that signing authority. Yes. Thank you.

You're aware, Mr. Mayor, that delegating your signing authority to Atty. Domingo does not delegate your accountability as the hope. Of

course.

Correct. You are still the final accountable officer.

Yes.

Thank you, sir. And you're also aware that under the law,

Head of Procuring Entity cannot delegate the authority to sign if there is a conflict of interest.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Mayor, in your statement, September 21, which was shown to you earlier, you alluded to a company called GenCorp Industries Incorporated. Is that not right?

Yes.

And so you are familiar with this corporation called GenCorp Industries Incorporated?

When it has been raised in this court, but before that, no.

I see. Okay. So your familiarity with GenCorp Industries Inc., your honor, is only limited to their participation in the contracts?

When it was mentioned here, in

this court. It's only in relation to the

mention

of GenCorp in this

court. When I was served as subpoena. I

see. I see. So just to clarify, sir, your knowledge of GenCorp Industries Inc. is limited to the reference of GENCORP in this court.

Yes.

I see. And so you do not have independent knowledge of GENCORP Interstate Incorporated?

No.

I see. And you don't have independent knowledge of GENCORP Interstate Incorporated by reason of their participation in the procurement bids that they made in relation to the city of Davao, sir?

Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered.

Not yet, Your Honor. I've never asked that question.

That is covered by the previous question repounded by the counsel for prosecution.

I'm sorry. Your Honor, it is to clarify because he mentioned that he only heard it here but his statement, Your Honor, alludes to GenCorp. And so we are clarifying whether it is in fact only in relation to this reference.

The court will

allow it. With this, may I answer? Kindly answer, Mayor Duterte. If you forgot the question, you may ask the counsel to repeat it.

Mr. Mayor?

Can

you reiterate?

Yes, yes. Sorry. Okay. So, in relation, your reference to your, sorry, your familiarity with GenCorp Industries Inc. is only by reason of the reference here in the impeachment court.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay.

You are, therefore, not familiar, Mr. Witness, that your sister, the Vice President, has actually declared an interest in GenCorp? You're not familiar with that?

No.

No, you're not?

No.

You're not familiar having heard the proceedings in the impeachment court that she has declared GENCORP twice in her SALNs for 2024 and 2025. You're not familiar with that, sir?

No.

No, you're not. Okay. Despite having heard the references to GENCORP in this trial.

Argumentative, Your Honor.

Withdrawn, Your Honor.

I will have to suspend.

If

I were to show you, Mr. Witness, your sister's SALNs for 2024 and 2025, would you be able to identify GenCorp based on your knowledge of GenCorp?

Objection, Your Honor. The Witness is not incompetent to identify, much less authenticate, and incompetent, Your Honor, rather, to authenticate documents, silence particularly, that are not his, Your Honor.

Objection is sustained, counsel. This would be incompetent.

We will move on.

Move

on.

In your statement, September 21, and may we have it flashed on screen, Your Honor?

In the first paragraph, sorry, could we have the statement without the marking?

In the first paragraph of your statement, can you show, can the assisting counsel show the...

Assistant Councils are authorized from both parties to approach the witness. While we have a short lull, the copies have been printed. It will be distributed to the counsel for the prosecutors as well as counsel for the respondent in a few minutes so that you can assign an assisting counsel to go over the same but we will nevertheless give you time over lunch to peruse the documents.

Thank you. Thank you,

Your

Honor. And these were from the period 2022 to 2025.

Yes, based on our records.

Thank you. And during all this time, 2022 to 2025, you were the head of the procuring entity. Is that right?

Yes.

Thank you, sir. Now, in your statement, the same statement, September 21, 2026, may I call your attention to the second paragraph where you declared, sorry, third paragraph, sorry.

In every instance, GenCorp Industries was rigorously evaluated and determined to have submitted the lowest calculated and responsive bid or offer. Do you confirm that in your statement, sir?

Your Honor, before the witness answers.

Yes, Attorney Justin.

Considering that we do not have a copy of this statement, may we request from the prosecution that we be given an extra copy.

Certainly, certainly. I'm sorry,

Attorney

Justin.

So I could follow as well.

Thank you, Atty. Ted.

Maraming salamat po, Atty.

You may proceed, Atty. Ted?

May I ask that you reiterate the question, sir?

In

that highlighted portion, third paragraph, sir, of your statement, the first sentence, in every instance, GenCorp Industries Inc. was rigorously evaluated and determined to have submitted the lowest calculated responsive bid or offer. You confirm that that sentence appears? In your statement. Yes,

sir.

Thank you, sir. And so you are personally confirming this to the court to be true that GenCorp was rigorously evaluated and determined. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Mayor, pinapakita ko po sa inyo ang isang request for quotation ng Davao City para sa second quarter ng taong 2024.

May we ask that it be flashed on the screen? Thank you. May we ask assisting counsel to show the witness a physical copy of the document.

There is a highlighted portion, Mr. Mayor. For the record, Your Honor, this refers to Prosecution Exhibit P-Roman 2-6-34. There is a highlighted portion, Mr. Witness.

Corresponding to item 5 of that document. May I request you, sir, if you could read it aloud for the court? Item 5, sir.

Line of business, the supplier must have a certificate issued by the CMO through the head of business bureau indicating that the line of business has been operational for at least 5 years in the market and shall be submitted as part of the eligibility documents. Thank

you, Mr. Mayor.

This request for quotation came from the city of Davao. Is that right?

Of course.

Thank you, sir. And therefore, this requirement, line of business, requiring that bidders must be in this line of business for at least five years, this is a requirement by the city of Davao to interested bidders.

It should be, yes.

Thank you, sir. So, I'll go back to your statement, sir. You said that you had Rigorously examined, evaluated rather is your word. Rigorously evaluated GenCorp Industries Inc. So in that evaluation, sir, were you able to determine if GenCorp indeed complied with this particular requirement imposed by the City of Davao?

I do not know that as of now. We can check our records

in the city.

I see. Okay. But as of now, sir, you have no personal knowledge if in fact GenCorp has been in existence for at least five years, sir?

I do not know.

I see. You did not, as part of your...

It

is presumed that GenCorp has complied.

Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you for volunteering that statement, Your Honor.

According to you, sir, it is presumed that GenCorp has complied.

Yes.

I

see. And so, when you say that, sir, that's not part of the rigorous evaluation that you made for GenCorp.

Argumentative, Your Honor.

Your Honor, I'm simply using the witness's own statement, Your Honor.

Move on, counsel.

Thank you,

Your Honor.

Move on, please.

Now, you did not have occasion to take a look at the corporate documents of GenCorp, sir?

Asked and answered, Your

Honor.

I've never asked that question.

Witness may answer? And witness is already answered?

No.

Okay.

Let's go to the

total number of awards that have been awarded to GenCorp by the City of Davao. You confirm, sir, that this would be 15 awards, sir?

No, this is 19.

Ah, 19, sir?

It is in the statement.

I see. So 19, sir. Okay. And were these awards... Sir, part of the documents that you have brought before this court?

Yes.

I see. Your Honor, at this point, may we be allowed a brief recess so we could peruse the documents so that we could compare? Considering, Your Honor, that the Phil Jepps representative had, in fact, identified only 15 and the witness, Mayor Duterte, is saying now there are 19. So, Your Honor, may we be allowed a brief recess to take a look at the documents?

May I ask how many minutes the parties would need? Again, I think the documents consist of about 100 pages. How many minutes would each side need to go over them? So that we can roughly calculate it over lunch. We can add the time for lunch recess.

Your Honor, would 15 minutes be reasonable, Your Honor?

Attorney Justin?

We will see, Your Honor. We haven't seen these documents. It's

about 100 pages.

We're about to give it to you.

We

also do not have the copies yet, Your Honor.

They're just collating it. Perhaps we can, with the permission of the Senator-Judges, the Chair can just simply make use of the time by issuing a ruling on the request for admission and the objection and motion to expunge by the respondent. And then we pause for an early lunch recess before 11 o'clock and convene again at 12.15.

I don't

hear anyone objecting so I guess we can do that. We shall suspend the direct examination of Mayor Duterte. and shall continue with the same after we resume at 12.15 to afford the parties enough time to go over the documents.

Mayor Duterte, mayroon pong pagkain doon sa holding room area para po sa inyo at sa mga kasamahan niyo so that hopefully we can finish with your testimony today. Forgive us for the time needed by the parties to Go over the documents. In the meantime, the chair hereby excuses for the meantime Mayor Duterte so that the chair can make his ruling on the request for admission and rejection and motion to expunge by the parties. You are excused Mayor Duterte for the meantime. You can either sit there still and watch the proceedings or go to the holding room at your pleasure. Thank you sir for the meantime.

I

would prefer to go to the holding room.

Yes sir. You may do so sir. Thank you po.

Again, while the documents are being collated to be given to the counsel for the respondent, the Chair will make a ruling with respect to the request for admission and respondent's objection thereto with a prayer to expunge. As is usual, the Chair will no longer issue a separate order, but instead the parties can rely on the Journal which shall contain in toto the ruling of the Chair on the matter. On September 8, 2026, the prosecution filed a request for admission.

Covering 104 matters concerning respondent's personal circumstances in former public offices, her spouse, Manassas Carpio's business interests, and various BAR and bank records. Respondent was given until September 23 to respond. On September 23, 2026, respondent through counsel filed an objection seeking to expunge the request. She argued that Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to impeachment proceedings. because, among others, it improperly shifts the prosecution's burden of proof, giving their highly penal character, circumvents their right against self-incrimination, and seeks matters protected by marital and filial privilege. On September 28, 2026, the prosecution manifested in open court its willingness to withdraw or openness to withdraw the request for admission and instead sought stipulations from the respondent. Stipulations require the parties' agreement and cannot be compelled by this court. Nevertheless, the impeachment court finds it necessary to address the issues raised by the request, although there is an offer to withdraw the request for admission, in order to guide the parties subsequently insofar as these impeachment proceedings are concerned, and also for any future persuasive effect this may have on future impeachment courts.

Rule 26. Revised Rules of Civil Procedure for the Presiding Officer cannot prevail over Section 17, Article 3 of the Philippine Constitution which provides, quote, No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Being part of the Bill of Rights, the right against self-incrimination remains protected even under impeachment process as held. In Duterte, VHOR, G.R. No. 278353. The principles laid down in People versus Ang, G.R. No. 231854, as well are instructive. If the request is allowed, any material and relevant matter of fact so requested for answer will be tantamount to compelling the respondent to be a witness against herself. Her failure to answer a request for admission, on the other hand, will be deemed an admission of fact requested to be admitted. Moreover, Rule 26 requires the answer to be under oath That Rule 26 requires the answer to be under oath, exposes the party requested to the additional peril of being held liable for perjury, and thus constitutes compulsion that is not allowed under the Constitution. While the impeachment court welcomes the prosecution's desire to narrow the issues for trial, identify matters genuinely in dispute, and avoid unnecessary proof of uncontroverted matters, any such measure to expedite the proceedings must always yield. To the protection of the substantial rights of the respondent under the Constitution. In the same vein, the Court deems it necessary to state that discovery cannot be used as a substitute for presenting competent evidence. Procedural due process requires the prosecution to establish the charges through competent evidence and that respondent be afforded a fair and meaningful opportunity to contest such evidence. The prosecution cannot shift its burden of proof to respondent through the simple expedience of a request for admission. Citing as basis, Solidbank Corporation v. Gateway Electronics, G.R. 164805. To compel the respondent to answer the request under pain of having the matters therein deemed admitted would undermine these safeguards. The impeachment court therefore rules that respondent cannot be required to serve a written response to the request for admission. The prosecution's position that impeachment is not a criminal prosecution does not displace these safeguards. Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 193459, explains that impeachment is analogous to a criminal trial, although it is not a criminal prosecution.

In, In re Impeachment of Horrilleno, 43 Phil. 212, a 1922 case, the court also noted that impeachment proceedings before the courts have been described in other jurisdictions as highly penal in character. To reiterate Duterte v. House of Representatives previously cited, it holds that the Bill of Rights applies throughout the impeachment process. Respondents' right against self-incrimination under Article 3, Section 17 must therefore be respected in this trial. Accordingly, The respondent's objection to the application of Rule 26 is sustained. Respondent need not answer the request for admission and her failure to answer shall not be deemed an admission. However, her prayer to expunge the request is denied. The request, the objection, and this ruling shall remain in the record as part of the proceedings, but with the admonition and reminder to Senator-Judges that the request for admission shall have no evidentiary, factual, or prejudicial effect against the respondent. In view of the foregoing, the impeachment court finds no need to address respondent's objection based on marital and filial privilege. So ordered.

It's 10.50.

Attorney Sheila, can you confirm that you already have a copy?

Yes, Your Honor, we confirm.

So, we pause for early recess and lunch break and we resume at 12.15. Would that be okay for the parties? Honorable Shell, can you confirm?

Yes, Your Honor.

Can you work over lunch, Attorney Sheila?

Yes, Your Honor.

So, we see each other at 12.15. Court declares an early lunch recess and we shall resume at 12.15.

For the record, we declared an early lunch recess to afford the parties the opportunity to go over the documents brought by the Honorable Mayor of Davao City by virtue of the subpoena issued by the court. Do the parties confirm that they were able to go over the documents? Atty. Ted?

Yes, Your Honor. For the record, Of the documents that the Mayor Duterte brought to this court, 15 of those documents match the documents that were produced by Mr. Sopeña of PhilGEPS. There are four, Your Honor, that do not appear from the PhilGEPS documents. Not

that they do not necessarily match, but they are not found in the PhilGEPS documents identified by the previous witness.

Yes, Your Honor, they were not identified and they were not presented. During the PhilGEPS testimony or honor. So just for the record, this would refer to a purchase order for the third quarter of 2026 and then a purchase order for the second quarter of 2026 and then another purchase order for the first quarter of 2024 and A purchase order that does not indicate the date but actually indicates a date of delivery of April to June 2023, Your Honor. So these are the four documents that have not been presented during the PhilGEPS. Mr. Sopeña's testimony, Your Honor. And so bringing the total to 19, Your Honor.

Atty. Justin, Your Honor. We received the documents, but just to set the record straight, Your Honor, I think it would be inaccurate to say that certain documents are not found in the PhilGEPs or was not produced by the PhilGEPs. I think the more accurate term, with all due respect, of course, to the prosecution, is that there was no testimony in respect to four transactions, Your Honor. And particularly, they are not in the PhilGEPs summary. Number 1, the April to June 2023 transaction. Number 2, the January to March 2024 transaction. Number 3, the July to September 2026 transaction. And number 4, April to June 2026. Just for the record, Your Honor.

Amid mention of 19 transactions as earlier pointed out in a statement. Would that be correct, counsels?

Yes, your honor. We confirm that.

Okay.

Can we proceed now with the continuation of the direct?

Yes, your honor. Thank you.

Kindly situate, kindly assist Mayor Sebastian Duterte to the witness stand to continue with this direct examination.

I hope counsel for the parties as well as the witness was able to partake of lunch despite the fact that it was a working lunch.

Yes, your honor.

Thank you.

Mayor, naunawaan niyo po. Patuloy kayo magdetestigo dito sa hukumang ito sa ilalim ng naunan niyo pong panunumpa.

Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you. Attorney Ted, you may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Your Honor.

With the continuation of your direct examination.

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Mayor, balikan po natin yung testimony ninyo patungkol po doon sa... GenCorp Industries Inc.

Nabanggit po ninyo yung GenCorp doon sa statement ninyo ng September 21, 2026. Tama po, ano?

Yes,

sir.

Apo. And yung pagkabanggit po ninyo doon sa GenCorp, doon sa statement ninyo, batay po doon sa naunang sinabi nyo, para lang po ma-remind po tayo, ang sinabi po ninyo, ang reference na yun po, Ay nakuha mo lang dito sa impeachment trial.

Yes, sir.

Bukod doon, wala na po kayong nakitang reference sa Gen Corp. Bukod doon dito sa binabanggit po sa impeachment trial. You

mean prior to the Sabina?

Yes,

sir.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. So, balikan po natin yung inyong statement ng September 21. I think may kopya pa po kayo diyan kung gusto po ninyong basahin. Balikan ko po lang yung sentence po sa second paragraph na sinabi po ninyo, GenCorp was rigorously evaluated and determined to have submitted the lowest calculated responsive bid or offer.

Ibig sabihin po nito sir, ginawa niyo po yung rigorous

Evaluation of GenCorp after you received the subpoena, sir?

No.

Okay.

When it was submitted, the BAC did its job.

I see. Thank you, sir. The BAC was the one that rigorously examined GenCorp.

Yes.

Hindi kayo.

Not precisely me.

Not you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, sir. Dahil po, hindi kayo member ng BAC. Tama po ba?

Correct.

Kayo po yung head of procuring entity. Final approval po kayo.

Yes.

Tama po.

Tama po ba ang intindi ko, sir, dun sa statement ninyo na GenCorp was rigorously evaluated and determined to have submitted the lowest calculated responsibility to offer? You are referring to the back, not to you yourself, sir.

Yes.

Yes, thank you. So, in relation to this statement, hindi mo rin inusisa personally yung corporate documents ng GenCorp?

Because there was no irregularity.

Yes, but so you did not personally examine the corporate records of GenCorp?

Most, most of the submissions for procurement, I cannot look at all of these.

I see.

Naintindihan ko po yan. Madami po yan. Pero zero-in po tayo, sir, sa GenCorp.

Labing siyam po yan. Nineteen.

Tama po, sir. So, dito sa 19 na documents na tinutukoy niyo na GenCorp ang award, balikan ko pala yung tanong ko.

Inusisa niyo ba personally yung corporate records ng GenCorp?

Asked and answered, Your Honor. Already answered, Your Honor.

Asked and answered, Counsel. Move on.

Thank you, Your Honor. So, dahil hindi naman ninyo inusisa yung corporate records ng GenCorp personally,

Yung

negosyo, yung pagmamayari ng GenCorp, hindi nyo nalalaman?

Of course.

Hindi po?

Yes.

Okay. At hindi nyo rin nalalaman kung ang GenCorp ay tumutupad doon sa requirement ng City of Davao na dapat Operational for at least 5 years.

Well, it could have been modified by the BAC.

Well, sir, I'll just ask you to just answer that question first, sir. Hindi nyo nalalaman personally...

No.

No, so the answer is no. Okay, thank you.

Hindi nyo rin po nalalaman bilang head of procuring entity at mayor po ng Davao ang negosyo ng GenCorp?

No.

No. Not even by reputation, sir.

There's a lot of corporations in the procurement process. We get about 5,000 to 7,000 a year.

Thank you. Again, sir, to be fair, focus tayo sa GenCorp.

Okay.

Sa GenCorp, hindi nyo alam yung negosyo ng GenCorp?

Personally po, sir.

No,

no.

Hindi nyo alam na yung GenCorp ay nag-ooperate ng Jollibee sa Davao?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ngayon po, May papakita po kaming request for quotation. This refers to bid number 251111-01. Mari pong ipa-flash sa screen at aabot po sa inyo yung physical copy po.

For the record, this refers to prosecution exhibit number P-Roman 2-6-29.

May I ask you to read, sir, the highlighted portion? It appears on the screen, sir.

This is item 11.

Item 11, sir. Yes, sir.

The supplier bidder must have at least five store outlet in Davao.

Thank you, sir. And so, this request for quotation, sir, that you have just read from, again, this was given by the City of Davao, sir.

Yes, sir.

At

bilang head of the procuring entity which you... which approved this award, you would know if the supplier or the bidder, in this case, GenCorp, has at least five stores.

Misleading, Your Honor. The witness already testified, really, Your Honor, that he does not have personal knowledge of the businesses, Your Honor, of GenCorp Industries, Inc. And now, the counsel for the prosecution is asking that

you

wouldn't know anything. That is precisely answered by the witness already, Your Honor.

Your Honor, If

I may

a brief

rejoinder. My question now to him is as head of the procuring entity, as in his official capacity, in relation to this request for quotation, which comes from the procuring entity.

But the answer of the witness was without distinction,

Your Honor.

I believe this has already been answered, counsel.

Thank you, Your Honor.

The court took note of the answer.

I will move on.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Balikan po natin, Sir, yung statement ninyo September 21.

If the witness can be shown.

Doon po sa statement ninyo, nakalagay po dito sa statement nyo, you referred to 19 contracts, sir. And then you said in your statement, 13 are consummated, 6 are ongoing. Tama, sir?

So,

just to be clarified, when you say, sir, consummated 13, ibig po bang sabihin nito completed po yung award? Ibig po sabihin nito delivered?

At

ibig po sabihin nito paid? At yung six po na ongoing, ibig po sabihin nito, sir, hindi pa po ito delivered?

At

hindi pa po ito bayad?

Yes, supposedly.

At alam po ninyo sir bilang mayor at bilang head of procuring entity, yung procedure ng pagbayad dito sa mga award na ito, alam nyo po ito sir?

Yes sir.

Okay. So as the head of the procuring entity and well the mayor also, you have the final sign of sir, right? Before any such... Money is released.

Yes, sir.

You have the final sign-off.

Yes, sir.

Tama. In fact, you have to sign-off on a voucher that is presented to you by accounting attesting na completed na po yung delivery. Tama po, sir?

I believe so.

Okay. Thank you. And you confirm, sir, that in the 13 consummated, which you referred to consummated, bayad po ito?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Now, doon po sa tinutukoy niyo ng 19 contracts entered into between Davao, Davao City, at GenCorp, apat dito ang ginawa through competitive bidding. Tama po, sir? Yes, sir. Thank you.

There are, of the four awards, I'll ask you only about two. Sir, para hindi tayo tumagal sir. Let me show you the same document, the same bid number that I referred to earlier. Bid number 251111-01. The document is entitled Bid Notice Abstract, Invitation to Bid for Food and Catering Services.

May we ask that it be flashed but the witness is being shown a physical copy. Sir, can you read the highlighted portion of the document?

Saan dito?

The one that appears on page 2, sir.

Atty. Osmundo P. Villanueva, Jr., BAC Chairperson, Goods

and Services.

Okay. So, this invitation to bid was signed by the BAC Chairperson appointed by you, sir?

Yes,

sir? Is that an affirmative response, sir?

Thank you. So, and you as the head of the procuring entity, you are the one who picks the members of the BAC. Is that right? Thank you. So, in the same document, sir, may I ask you to read the procurement mode on the left side of the first page. It's highlighted, sir, for your reference on the screen. But it's also in the document. Procurement mode, sir.

Public bidding.

Public bidding.

And tama po ba ang ngintindi ko pag sinabing public bidding, ito ay competitive bidding.

Yes, sir.

And itong invitation to bid number 25111.01 ay pinose ng local government of Davao sa PhilGEPS para imbitahan sumali ang mga gustong magbid. Tama po. Yes, sir. Tama. Itong invitation to bid was issued by the BAC on behalf of the city. Correct, sir?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. So, again, in that same document, sir, can I ask you to read the ABC, the approved budget for the contract?

It's 10,800,000.

10,800,000 pesos. Ang ibig sabihin po ng ABC, yun po ang... Ceiling ng budget ng Davao City para sa kontratang ito. Tama po ba?

Yes, sir.

You cannot go beyond this amount, sir.

Tama,

sir? Is that an affirmative response, sir? Thank you. At ang ABC ay inaaprubahan ng HOPE bago i-post online.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Ang

source po ng ABC ay public funds.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. And... Under the system of competitive bidding, nagpapababaan po ng bid ang mga sumasali. Tama po ba?

Correct.

Ang dahilan po dun ay para po makatipid ang gobyerno.

Yes.

Tama sir, no? So, it is more advantageous to the government that the lowest bid would qualify. Tama sir?

Correct.

Thank you.

So, just to, again, clarify, kung merong Multiple bidders, mas pabor sa gobyerno dahil nagpapababaan sila ng presyo.

Ngayon po, nangyayari po din naman, Mayor, na kahit na po ang mode of procurement ay public bidding, ay isa lang ang nagbid. Nangyayari po din yan. So, pakita

ko lang po sa inyo ulit. Same document, bid number 251111.01.

At

pakita

ko lang po yung nakalagay na binibid na description.

Can you, can you, yes sir, can you read the description?

Drinks, 500 ml bottled water, rice, 150 grams plain rice, I don't know what B160 is, menu, 150 grams ba yan fried chicken.

Thank you sir. Batay po dito sa kontratang ito na ipinabid ng Davao City para sa fried chicken, rice, at tubig. Ang ABC po nito ay 10,800,000. Tama po?

Yes, that is what it says.

Yes, sir.

Ngayon po, dahil

po competitive bidding tayo, yung papasok po sa bid, yung gagawa ng bid,

Binabase niya yung bid dito sa pinopost po ninyo

sa

invitation to bid at i-coconsider niya lahat ng nakalagay po dyan bago siya magsabitan ng bid. Tama po, sir.

So,

mahalaga pong kompleto yung specifications, yung kailangan ng local government para alam ng bidder kung magkano ipipresyo po niya. Tama po yun, no? Tama, sir. Tama po. Ngayon, Papakita ko po uli sa inyo yung same document, bid notice abstract, bid number 251111-01. Meron pong nakalagay, sir, sa ilalim, dyan sa may box po sa ilalim, nakahighlight po sa screen, nakalagay tatlong lots of meals. Nakikita po ninyo, sir?

Yes, sir.

Doon po sa tatlong lots of meals na yan, sir, maaaring po bang pakikumpirma po kung nababasa po ninyo yung katagang without venue?

Yes, sir.

Kita po ninyo, sir. Tatlong beses po lumalabas, sir. Tama, sir?

Yes, sir.

Tama po. At maaaring po pang pakitingnan ulit yung nakalagay po sa highlighted portion kung ilang tao. Para sa ilang tao po yung binibid? Yung total po.

Yung

una po,

20,

yung pangalawa po,

at

pangatlo,

20,000.

So

total po nito ay for 60,000 people.

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

Ngayon, I will show you resolution number 11061, series of 2025, and it's flashed on the screen, and I think you're being given a copy of the same. For the record, this is prosecution exhibit P-Roman 2-6-29. The title is a resolution declaring the lone bid of GenCorp Industries as the single calculated responsive bidder for the procurement of food and catering services, bracket framework agreement, close bracket, requested by the city mayor's office, and recommending to the head of the procuring entity, to award the contract to the said bidder. Ang ibig pong bang sabihin ng single calculated responsive bidder is wala pong kalaban ang nanalong bidder.

I think that was, that suggests it.

So, nag-iisa po siya?

Yes, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Same document po. Can I ask you to read the wherefore? portion that is bracketed sir.

The

BAC resolves as it is hereby resolved to declare GenCorp Industries as the bidder with a single calculated response bid SCRB and recommends to the head of the procuring entity to award the contract at its submitted price to the aforesaid bidder.

Yes and the head of the procuring entity here sir is you sir. Thank you sir. So again in that Same document, resolution number 11061, series of 2025.

May I ask you to take a look at the box that is highlighted, sir?

And

can you read the contents of that highlighted portion, sir?

GenCorp Industries 123 awarded for 8,400,000.

Yes, sir. So the total amount awarded here is 8,400,000, sir.

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

Now, in that same document, on the second page of that, bracketed on the screen, may I ask you to read the bracketed portion, sir?

Approved Sebastian Duterte by the authority of the City Mayor for Executive Order No. 12, dated July 1, 2025.

And the name, sir?

Attorney Tristan Dwight P. Domingo, Assistant City Administrator of For administration.

And there appears, sir, above that name, a signature. You know that to be Attorney Domingo's signature, sir?

Yes.

And you're familiar because you've seen it many times.

Yes, a couple

of times, yes.

Thank you.

Ang ibig sabihin po ng approval na ito, Mayor, no?

Inaaprubahan ni Attorney Domingo itong kontrata. At ina-award ng kontratang ito ang fried chicken meal sa halagang 8,400,000 sa GenCourt.

As my representative,

yes. Tama po.

Yes, as your representative. Based on the delegated authority.

Yes.

Yes, sir. And that is why your signature does not appear on that award, sir. And you delegate that authority to Attorney Domingo specifically so that you don't need to take a look at this document. Right, sir?

Yes.

Thank you. That's because there are other things that you need to attend to, sir.

Yes.

Ask

and answer, Your Honor.

No, Your Honor. It's the first time I'm asking this question.

Actually, forgive me with your indulgence, Attorney Ted.

The court has given you enough leeway to ask these questions.

Kindly connect it to the article at hand, which is... I guess you're trying to prove conflict of interest in connection with unexplained wealth or ill-gotten wealth. The witness is not the one on trial here in relation to all of the admissions you're eliciting from him. Kindly move to that already, counsel.

Yes, Your Honor, but if we will just be allowed to examine the witness at contract. Relating to the other mode of procurement, Your Honor. And then we will proceed to connect, Your Honor, as the presiding officer has indicated.

Understood. With respect to such a short list, with respect to this particular subject matter, you may proceed, Counsel, and proceed to the

main point.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you, Counsel.

So, let

me just call your attention, Mr. Mayor, to the

notice of award. dated November 27, 2025, addressed to the manager, GenCorp Industries, Inc., Bolton Street, Davao City. For the record, this is Prosecution Exhibit P-Roman 2-6-29.

And the first sentence of the document, may I ask the... Assistant Counsel to show the witness the document.

Okay.

This one?

The first sentence of the document, first paragraph, right?

The first paragraph.

In the first paragraph, Mr. Mayor, which you have in front of you, do you confirm the words without venue on that paragraph?

Yes,

Yes sir. Thank you. And do you also confirm that the, that the words approved by the head of the procuring entity, uh, appears in that paragraph?

Yes.

And do you confirm that the amount, 8,400,000 appears also in that paragraph?

Yes.

Thank you.

Let me now go to the second mode of procurement that was availed of here in relation to these awards. We will move ahead in relation to this and talk about small value procurement, Mr. Mayor.

Thank

you. Let me show you a document entitled Purchase Order for Food and Catering Services for the first quarter of 2026.

May I request Assistant Counsel to present the Mayor with a copy of that document.

Do

you confirm, sir, in that document that your signature does not appear there?

Yes, sir.

and that the name and the signature of Attorney Tristan Dwight P. Domingo appears.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And can you read, sir, the total amount of the total purchase order? Total price of the purchase order?

554,000 pesos.

554,000 pesos. And can you confirm, sir, the mode of procurement that is indicated in the purchase order?

It's not clear. It's not clear.

What does it...

Negotiated procurement.

Negotiated procurement.

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

And you, by negotiated procurement, sir, in your experience as mayor and also head of the procuring entity, ang ibig po sabihin nito, wala na pong magaganap na public bidding, tama po ba? Correct. At dito sa small value procurement, Ang ginagawa na lang po dito ay humihingi na lang ng quote ang procuring entity, in this case the city government,

sa

mga kumpanya na gusto mag-bid.

Tama

Tama no? Ang minimum number po ba, tatlo? Ilan po ang hinihingan po na quote ng procuring entity po?

I do not know the minimum but kung mas marami mas okay.

Mas marami mas okay. Okay. Kasi nga po, Para makatipit ang gobyerno. Para

competitive.

Tama.

Yes.

Kahit na po hindi competitive bidding ito, small value procurement po ito.

Okay po.

Pero

katulad po sa competitive bidding, Mayor, kung isa lang ang natanggap,

pwede

na rin po i-award?

Yes.

Pwede na?

Yes.

Okay.

Gano'ng katagal po kayo nagaantay bago kayo mag-award? Kahit na, halimbawa, isa lang po ang nagbigay.

What do you mean? Your Honor, pardon but we have been giving leeway to the prosecution but several questions have already passed and we are yet to see the relevance of this line of questioning, Your Honor.

I have to agree, Attorney. Besides, the witness would be incompetent because as hope, I was once a hope too.

He would not have personal knowledge with respect to what the BAC does. They can only recommend. And he approves or disapproves the same. And while we're at it, for the record, for the information of the court and the public as well, Republic Act No. 9184 has been amended by Republic Act No. 12009. I am the author of Republic Act No. 12009. And for the record, No longer is it limited to the lowest calculated responsive bid as found in Republic Act No. 9184. Republic Act No. 12009, while it includes still the lowest calculated responsive bid, it also includes what is called the most economically advantageous responsive bid, MEARB. and the most advantageous responsive bid, MARB. Ang logika o rason po sa likod nito, bakit ba yung pinakamura na lamang ang kukunin at bibili ng pamahalaan kung masama naman yung kalidad? Bapat bukas sa pamahalaan na bumili ng kagamitan para sa taong bayan na maganda ang quality at mas magtatagal na sa dulo ay mas mura din. Having said that, forgive me for that interruption. But, Attorney Ted, kindly

move.

Thank you, Your Honor. May I just be allowed to respond very quickly? I had asked the court.

The Court has already ruled, Your Honor.

May I ask for a quick rejoinder, Your Honor?

The Court has already ruled, Your Honor.

On what, Counsel?

Just to address the comments of the defense because I was not allowed to comment, Your Honor.

The Court has already ruled. Let's allow him, Atty. Justin. Yes, a brief manifestation or comment, Counsel.

Firstly, Your Honor, I believe it is the court that indulges us, the parties, not the defense. Secondly, Your Honor, I had asked permission from the court to be allowed to present a representative of the other mode of procurement before tying it up. And I was heading in that direction, Your Honor, precisely to comply with the Court.

No, this is the other mode of procurement already.

Yes, Your Honor, precisely.

I am about to end, Your Honor. And I will get to the point.

Kindly do so at the soonest possible time.

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor.

With your indulgence, Attorney Justin, let's allow him to wind it up so that he can go direct to the point already. Please, Counsel. Yes, Your

Honor. Thank you. I am getting there, Your Honor.

Ngayon, Mr. Mayor, narinig po... Narinig po ninyo sir yung comments ni presiding officer Mr. Mayor patungkol po dun sa procurement law?

Opo sir.

Yes. And bilang head of the procuring entity,

aware

po kayo dun sa mga requirements ng bago at yung nakaraang procurement law?

Aware

po kayo sir?

Not entirely but yeah.

May I be clarified what you mean by not entirely, sir?

Like all the details, I cannot recite to you in verbatim what's in the law.

But you are aware of the essential requirements.

Thank you.

That would be sufficient for me. Under the former

Procurement Law 9184, Section 6. The older procurement law, I should say. 9184, Section 6. May mga standard bidding forms po na binibigay, no?

Yes.

Provided?

Opo.

At, ah, ganun din po ang under sa bagong procurement law, 12009.

Is that an affirmative response? Thank you, sir.

At

mahalaga dito na itama po yung nakalagay. Doon sa forms na indicated under the procurement law. Mahalaga po yan. And in fact, sir, as the head of the procuring entity, and you know this sir, dahil alam po ninyo yung batas, meron kayong discretion to reject an award if it does not comply.

Kayo

po yung final, tama sir?

Dito po sa lahat ng kontrata ng GENCORP

19 in all, whether by competitive bidding or by small value procurement, you did not exercise that discretion, sir.

To reject?

Yes.

No.

No. Okay.

In

fact, none of these contracts were signed by you.

No.

None. Tama, sir.

Yes.

And if I recall a previous answer you gave, sir, that you would review the contract Only if there was something wrong.

Irregular.

Irregular. Sorry. Irregular was your word. Irregular with the contract, sir.

Yes.

And so, because you're now saying that you never exercised that discretion as the hope in relation to these 19 contracts.

Yes.

Do I understand it, sir, na hindi nyo rin ni-review ito? Isa-isa?

Isa

-isa. Not one by one. Right?

Yeah.

Okay. Did you review it at all?

No.

Asked and answered,

Your Honor.

Okay. Answered already. And so,

yung final na nag-approve po nito ay si Atty. Tristan.

Tama po.

Domingo.

Tama po, sir.

Sa ilalim

po ng Republic Act,

9184 at sa Republic Act 12009, aware po kayo sir that the bidder, bidders, any bidder, has to submit what is called an omnibus sworn affidavit.

You

know that sir, right? And the contents of the sworn affidavit should contain what sir?

I'm asking you, sir, if you know what the omnibus sworn affidavit should contain.

Your Honor, considering that the witness is not a lawyer and is therefore incompetent to testify with respect to laws, may we just ask that the...

Attorney Ted, just ask your question.

Thank you.

In this sworn affidavit, Mr. Mayor, na nakatakdasan dalawang procurement law natin, 9184-12-009, kailangan po i-disclose ng bidder. Kung meron po siyang conflict of interest sa BAC at sa HOPE, di ho ba?

Yes,

correct. Tama.

Tama, sir. Naalala niyo po. Tama po.

Ngayon po, dahil

po ang sinabi niyo sa statement ninyo ng September 21, na yung rigorous examination ng GenCorp ay ginawa ng BAC at hindi kayo. Tama, sir, no? Yes. Tama po yun. At kakasabi niyo lang po ngayon na... Hindi niyo tinignan yung labing siyam na kontrata na binigay sa GenCorp. Hindi niyo tinignan. Tama sir, no? Just to confirm.

What do you mean?

You did not personally examine the 19?

Like now or before?

Before it was awarded.

Yeah, before it was awarded, no.

No, thank you, thank you. So you did not do that. Okay. So you would not be able to tell the court if in fact GenCorp had submitted the omnibus sworn statement?

I think there would be an affidavit if...

It

has complied and was, you know, like...

You're saying, sir, you think there was an affidavit?

Yes.

But you can't say that, sir.

We can confirm this.

Yes, but you can't say that now, sir, right? Because you never examined the documents, right, sir?

Your Honor, he's already

arguing with the witness,

Your Honor.

I'm sorry, Attorney Justin, but...

The counsel is already arguing with the witness.

Your Honor, I'm just confirming the answer, Your Honor.

Proceed, counsel.

Yes, Your Honor.

Attorney Justin, I would have to overrule you for the meantime.

In relation sir, because you never examine the documents, hindi mo masasabi sa korte kung may nakita kang omnibus sworn statement. Hindi mo masasabi yan?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you sir. Klamang po.

Sinabi po ninyo sa umpisa, Mayor, no? Ah, pasensya na. Koti na lang.

It's okay. It's okay.

Sinabi po ninyo sa umpisa, sir, na kayo po ay ang anak ni dating Pangulo, Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Tama, sir? At kayo ang kapatid ni kasalukuyang Pangalawang Pangulo, Sara Duterte. Yes,

sir.

So, aware po kayo, sir, sa provision ng Saligang Batas patungkol sa conflict of interest.

Yes, sir.

Aware kayo. Section 13. Aware kayo, sir, no? Na yung Pangulo at Pangalawang Pangulo na, well, aman ninyo, dating Pangulo, kapatid ninyo, Pangalawang Pangulo ngayon,

Pinagbabawal na magkaroon ng conflict of interest sa opisina nila. Pinagbabawal sila na magkaroon ng negosyo, interest sa negosyo, habang sila inanonungkulan.

Yes, sir.

Aware kayo doon, sir? Tama, sir. So, bilang head of the procuring entity at mayor ng Davao, kung may conflict of interest si pangalawang Pangulo dito sa labing siyam na kontratang ito,

Nasa kapangyarihan kayo, nasa position kayo, na abisuhan siya na mayroong conflict of interest. Tama po.

Objection, Your Honor. Three grounds. Number one, speculative. Number two, assumes facts, not yet in evidence. And number three, Your Honor, delves into hypotheticals.

Your Honor, may I comment?

I know where you're getting at, Counsel. You can get to it. Reform a bit, Counsel.

Well, okay, Your Honor. But just for the record, Your Honor, I am... Allowed to ask leading question. A leading question necessarily has no basis, Your Honor. Precisely, I am putting the words in the mouth of the witness.

But I will reform,

Your Honor.

There's a way to do it.

Thank you.

Baguhin ko po yung tanong, Mr. Mayor.

Bilang hope, at alam nyo yung provision ng Saligang Batas, Section 13, maaaring nyo sabihan yung kapatid ninyo.

na pangalawang Pangulo kung meron siyang conflict of interest.

Again, Your Honor, speculative, Your Honor.

Your Honor, it's not speculative. He has testified that he knows that provision.

He is the son of a former President. He is the brother of a current Vice President. And, Your Honor, I'm simply asking him if he is in a position to inform his sister.

With the indulgence of counsels, hopefully to abbreviate the proceedings even on the part of Attorney Justin,

If you may, Mayor Duterte, nakita

niyo po ba at pamilyar ba kayo sa SAL-N ng ikalawang Pangulo?

No.

So hindi niyo po alam yung mga dineklara niyang kompanya at pag-aari dun sa SAL-N?

Hindi po, Your Honor.

Lumabas po kasi sa pagdinig na ito na nilagay ng ikalawang Pangulo sa kanyang SAL-N na stockholder o shareholder siya ng GenCorp.