October 13, 2026

President, the presiding officer, and several 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.

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.

The Chair dispenses with the reading and approval of the journal. of yesterday's trial that given that we were just suspended yesterday and hence we do not have as of yet a journal to approve. By way of an update, yesterday, the chair, the presiding officer asked for time to prepare for the subsequent steps that the trial court will make before we go on a recess given that the prosecution has manifested It is finished with this presentation on Article 2 and has filed a manifestation last October 6 that it will be dropping Article 3 on bribery within the Department of Education. Actually, the chair up to now is still finalizing our draft ruling. So, yesterday, Atty. Sheila After asking that we convene at 8.30 in the morning today, unfortunately was not granted by the court, had manifestations to make. So would you care to make those, Attorney Sheila, or would you care to hear the prosecution first on their intentions with respect to Article 3 and or resting the case?

Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, Your Honors. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good morning to the panel of the prosecutor. We will allow the prosecutions to make their intentions known before we comment or do our own manifestations, Your Honor. Thank you.

The Honorable Diokno is recognized to make known his intentions.

I was going to give way, Your Honor, to the defense, but thank you. Atty. Sheila. Just a few administrative matters first, if Your Honor's pleased. With respect to the exhibit markings for the past witness, I'm referring to Atty. Cabrera. We request that the following documents be marked. First, the curriculum vitae of Atty. Alexander B. Cabrera as the prosecution's exhibit P-R2-9-1.

Second, Your Honor, the forensic report. Marked as the Prosecutions Exhibit P-R2-9-2. Third,

Your Honors, the Annexes A to E of the Forensic Report as the Prosecutions Exhibit P-R2-9-2-A. And last, Your Honor, the Flash Drive as the Prosecutions Exhibit P-R2-9-2.

There are other manifestations, but I would like to give way to the defense, if you're honest, please.

As far as the exhibits are concerned, the exhibits identified by the Honorable Diokno are hereby ordered to be marked at a later date with a clerk of court in the presence of counsel for the parties. Would you like to make a similar marking, Attorney Sheila, or none at this time?

None at this time, Your Honor, but in any case, if we do decide to ask this court for additional marking, we'll probably just file the appropriate manifestation and request for a conference with the prosecution.

Yes, or if not, during the marking of the evidence for the prosecution, you can so manifest the marking of any evidence already identified by any witness thus far presented on the part of the prosecution.

Yes, Your Honor, that's also an option for us.

Yes, that is an option.

Really, our preference is that the prosecution proceeds first with their manifestations. However, perhaps just one point so that we get this manifestation out of the way.

The lady may proceed with her manifestation.

Thank you, Your Honor. Further to the Kukan case that I mentioned yesterday with respect to the piercing or the principal.

We also request that the case of Amoroso versus Vantage Drilling International and Group of Companies, this is GR number...

238477, which is a fairly recent case promulgated in August 8, 2022. Be also included in the cases that this court will take mandatory judicial notice of. And just for the record, I will just quote a very short portion of this decision which says that no court or quasi-judicial agency can acquire jurisdiction over a defendant or respondent unless they are either validly served with summons or voluntarily appear in court. The doctrine of piercing the corporate fiction is only applied during trial to determine established liability because it presupposes that it had previously acquired jurisdiction over a defendant or respondent.

Further along the decision, the court also said that being an extraordinary and equitable remedy, applying the doctrine must be done with caution. And the reason really is very simple because due process must be respected. And the respondent must first be properly informed that legal action is being brought against them and be given the chance to respond to the suit. I will presume, of course, that the prosecution has a comment on this. But nonetheless, we put on record the case again of Amoroso v. Vantage during international group of companies. At 2022 case, Your Honor. Now, with the rest of our manifestations, we will allow the prosecution to go first. Thank you.

Thank you. As earlier directed by the presiding officer, the cases mentioned by the lead prosecutor as well as the cases mentioned by the Honorable Diokno.

In so far as these are concerned, the presiding officer instructed the clerk of court to furnish all the senator judges with a copy of the same through their respective emails. And I was informed just now by the clerk of court through Annika that indeed they have been so furnished with copies of the cases mentioned after we found the citations to be accurate in this regard.

Yes, Honorable Diokno.

You're on that point, if you're honest, please. May I just inform the court that in addition to the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil being recognized in jurisprudence, it is also a principle that is recognized, as mentioned by Attorney Cabrera yesterday, in accounting. Just to inform the court. I likewise make a reservation, if you're honest, please, anyway, I believe we will be given time at the

Yes,

both legal memoranda and closing arguments after the culmination of the presentation of the evidence-in-chief by the respondent. That will come at a later time, Honorable Diokno. Now, moving to the October 6th manifestation wherein you stated that you were withdrawing your witness and Rather recalling the issuance of subpoena in favor against an official of the NBI and withdrawing Article 3 on bribery prior to arresting your case, which will, as you know, in accordance with the rules, will trigger the corresponding order by the court on the submission of a formal offer. Comment thereto. and ruling of the court with respect to the formal offer taking into account the comments thereto by counsel for respondent before the respondent begins the presentation of its evidence in chief. So can we take that up, Honorable Diokno?

Yes, Your Honor. May I yield the floor to our team leader or overall leader for the prosecution panel, Chair Jinky Lewistro.

The floor is yielded to the fearless leader of the Honorable Diokno, the lead prosecutor.

Honorable Luistra is recognized. Yes, ma'am.

Your Honor, please. Please allow this representation to read this manifestation.

There is no written submitted manifestation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We understand, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.

Please proceed.

Mr. Presiding Officer, the Honorable Senator Judges, four

articles of impeachment were filed against the Respondent Vice President.

Today,

The prosecution respectfully manifest that

it will no longer pursue three of them.

It will stand on one, and

that is Article 2 on unexplained wealth.

Let me explain in three parts.

First, our decision to focus on what is necessary.

During pretrial, the prosecution named Numerous witnesses but did not present all of them.

On the article on threats, we named 10 witnesses and presented only 3. On

the article on confidential funds, we named 27 and presented only 11. On the article on unexplained wealth, we named 15. and presented 11, not counting the individual bank and insurance witnesses. On the article on bribery, we will present none of the five witnesses we had named.

In all, some 32 witnesses will no longer be called to the witness stand. This reflects The prosecution's considered decision to focus its case only on the witnesses absolutely necessary for each article.

Second, the proceedings that will no longer be necessary. The prosecution has not yet made its formal offer of documentary evidence. Had we proceeded on all four articles The impeachment court would have had to consider the evidence offered for each together with the corresponding objections and arguments. By

focusing on one article, the matters requiring the impeachment court's consideration are correspondingly narrowed with practical benefits for the Senate,

the respondent, and even The Public.

Third, why one article is enough? The prosecution believes it has presented sufficient evidence for Article 2 to stand on its own.

All in po tayo dito. We believe that evidence is substantial and compelling and warrants the respondent's removal from office for culpable violation of the Constitution. and betrayal of public trust.

Article 2, the article on unexplained wealth, covers three matters.

One, unexplained wealth. Two, violations of the SALN. And three, prohibited business interest.

We believe we have provided sufficient evidence on all these allegations. In the prosecution's assessment, Concentrating on this article is the most judicious course consistent with the evidence and our duty to the nation.

Therefore, honorable senator judges, beloved countrymen, the prosecution formally manifests its withdrawal of and intention to no longer pursue Article 1 on confidential funds. Article 3 on bribery and Article 4 on threats. We respectfully submit this manifestation to the Honorable Impeachment Court for its consideration and appropriate action. We recall the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona in which the prosecution likewise withdrew certain articles. and proceeded only on the remaining ones. That president recognized the prosecution's privilege to determine which articles to pursue and which to drop. This manifestation is made in that same spirit to exercise the prosecution's judgment on which charges to pursue as well as to safeguard The Interest of the Nation, Against Betrayal of Public Trust, and Culpable Violation of the Constitution. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank you, Honorable Senator Judges.

The Chair notes the manifestation of the Lead Prosecutor, the Honorable Luis Stroll. Comment from Attorney Sheila, the Lead Counsel for the Respondent.

Thank you, Your Honor.

You may proceed, ma'am.

We thank the lead prosecutor for the calendar today in that it now has given formal notice that the prosecution after 38 days and expenditure

of government resources presenting all these witnesses and so-called evidence and spending all our time coming to court is now formally withdrawing. Two of those articles for which they had presented evidence. And we respect the decision of the prosecution. However, whether this will affect how the defense planned to proceed with its presentation of evidence is something that we must make clear, it will not. Because the prosecution cannot make decisions for the respondent and the defense. In other words, the prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested. And the court has already heard the prosecution's alleged evidence and the interpretations it laid on them. And the public has been already exposed to its allegations repeatedly. Through long interjections, interpolations, direct examinations, and the many conclusions and opinions that several of their witnesses have given before this honorable court. And therefore, the accusations have already entered the consciousness of those who must ultimately render judgment. In other words, the prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard While the respondent would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted. And we feel and we believe that this is not fairness and it is not in keeping with the guarantees of due process because the right to be heard is not merely satisfied by allowing the respondent some room. To present evidence on her behalf. It necessarily includes a meaningful opportunity to answer material accusations already publicly advanced against her. Especially in this case where those allegations have been placed before the very tribunal that will decide this case and all for the entire country and member of this nation. for their hearing pleasure. And so, we believe that even as we respect the prosecution's decision to withdraw the three articles or the two articles today in addition to Article 3 or the bribery article.

The prosecution nonetheless cannot unilaterally determine how the defense will proceed or which accusations the judges may hear and which accusations the respondent may be permitted to answer. It cannot make decisions for us and for the respondent because to allow this would be to confer upon the prosecution the extraordinary. and impermissible power to control not only the presentation of its own case but also the scope and substance of the defense case. Now, if the withdrawal is intended to shorten the proceedings of this case or of the presentation of the respondent's evidence so that the court may immediately proceed to judgment, Then we believe that the resulting process would bear the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial.

A proceeding in which the fundamental balance between accusation and defense has been so seriously compromised because, again, on record, we have spent government resources, time, energy of this Court and of all the participants. In this trial, presenting so-called evidence and hearing testimonial evidence from the witnesses that the prosecution had chosen to present before this honorable court. And yet, the defense would now appear to be forced to limit its presentation. Or it's rebuttal to those evidence to whatever it is that the prosecution had decided to retain in the articles of impeachment. This we will never allow.

And while we recognize that indeed the prosecution has that prerogative to withdraw articles in the articles of impeachment that they had filed. In fact, we also recognize that the prosecution may in fact withdraw all articles of impeachment but of course they will not do that. But that prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent.

The authority to streamline or to achieve speed in a trial is not the authority to diminish due process or to altogether disregard fundamental rules of fairness. And the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly. And just to set the records straight, the lead prosecutor also mentioned the corona impeachment trial as a precedent for its decision to withdraw Articles 1 and Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment. But just so it is clear before this honorable court, as I'm sure this court can confirm and verify from the Senate records, and so that Marinig din ng ating mga kababayan kung ano ba talagang nangyari sa corona trial nung winithdraw ng prosecution ng kanilang article. The withdrawal of the five articles out of the eight articles in the corona impeachment happened before the presentation of evidence, not after as in this case, Your Honor. Thank you.

The Court confirms as an initial reaction that indeed It is not solely the prosecutor's call or the prosecution's call to withdraw an article of impeachment but neither is it the respondent's call to deny the same. Once articles of impeachment are filed before the court or any complaint filed before any court for that matter, it is already subject to and under the jurisdiction and disposition of the court. Not by the party. So we take this manifestation as a motion that will be adopted, that will be acted upon by the court, taking into account the manifestation which the court will take as an objection on the part of the respondent. And hence, yes, ito yung Sheila.

Do I take it as an objection? Am I correct?

No, Your Honor.

Or a manifestation against it?

It's just a manifestation, Your Honor. Just to set the record straight that however the defense or the respondent would want to proceed with its presentation is of our own decision. And that, of course, if that's the call of the prosecution to withdraw certain articles from the articles of impeachment, that is their lookout. And that is their prerogative. Now, whatever will be the consequence of that decision will be or would be for them to bear alone and not for the respondent. So it's not an objection to the withdrawal of those articles. I'm just making a manifestation on behalf of the defense and the respondent that we will proceed as we deem fit, Your Honor.

Even if it's not an objection, it's still subject to the court's decision and discretion as to how. To act on the motion of the prosecution. For this reason, the chair calls a brief recess to consult the senator judges. Brief recess is called.

I

was, yes, what is the pleasure of the lead prosecutor?

May I just make a counter-manifestation? Brief only, Your Honor. Just to put on record.

The lady may proceed. And as I understand, the lead, the counsel for the respondent would also like to make one, I believe.

Yes, Your Honor.

Yes, I cannot say ladies first, but the lead lady prosecutor is recognized first for a counter-manifestation.

Your Honor, It is never the intention of the prosecution to disregard the resources which were spent already by the impeachment court in as far as this trial is concerned. Neither is it the intention of the prosecution to cause unfairness or injustice on the part of the respondent. As a matter of fact, Your Honor, This decision was arrived at after a careful study of what is best for the impeachment court,

for

the public,

and

even for the respondent. In this light, Your Honor, we wish to express our concern for the public who has expressed their impatience considering that the allegations contained In the articles of impeachment are the same allegations contained in the first impeachment back in 2024 during the 19th Congress, Your Honor. Our beloved countrymen has all the right to know, witness, and be informed of the conclusion of all these impeachment processes which started as early as 2024. Second, Your Honor, We express our concern for the Honorable Impeachment Court considering the equally important legislative functions that they need to face as well. That includes the regular bills pending before the Senate,

and

most importantly, the much-anticipated budget hearing for General Appropriations Act of 2027, Your Honor. Ultimately, Your Honor, During the presentation of evidence in chief by the prosecution, the defense was likewise given their opportunity to participate by way of their lengthy, extensive, engaging cross-examination where they were able to present their pieces of documents as well to the public. And if the desire of the defense is to be able to share all the pieces of evidence that they have. There are a lot of platforms which they may consider, Your Honor, if the intention only is to share this publicly. Ultimately, Your Honor, the prosecution wishes to put on record that this

decision, that

this decision to withdraw, drop the three or four articles Retaining only Article 2, Unexplained Wealth, is being done after careful consideration of all the interests of the parties involved. Thank you, Your Honor.

When the lead prosecutor mentioned that if the respondent wants to be heard, there are other platforms where

we can show and present our evidence. I'm not sure if I heard that right.

And to be frank, it sounds, it is ridiculous to even suggest to the respondent that, hey, after 38 days,

Ang lahat ng mga tao na sa tingin namin ay kayang magbigay ng damage sa iyong reputasyon.

At

kayang mag-identify ng mga dokumento na gusto naming marinig ng taong bayan. Pero ang gagawin namin sa bandang huli ay i-withdraw namin lahat ito. At sasabihin na lamang namin na ito ay para sa taong bayan para may kaunti namang kabilisan ang trial na ito. But, nonetheless... May iba ka namang platform respondent. That is the messaging that the prosecution seems to want to impart before the public and before this honorable court. It is unbelievable. And to be honest, it is unacceptable. Platform for the respondent? Does the prosecution really want the respondent na

Ang respondents sa Facebook and where else. Matapos nilang sirain ang

vicepresidente sa harap ng publiko. At ngayon ang sasabihin ay tutulungan ang taong bayan para mamadali ang proseso.

Sa tingin ko, hindi natin kailangan ng higit pang patunay na something really, really wrong is going on here.

Binanggit rin ng lead prosecutor yung 2025 impeachment complaint that the prosecution allegedly wants to help the public because they're interested because the impeachment complaints against the Vice President have been going on since 2025. In fact, I will probably need to correct that because the impeachment campaign against the Vice President did not only begin in 2025 when the Supreme Court junked and nullified Void ab initio. The impeachment complaints filed or the articles of impeachment that the 19th House of Representatives filed. Baka nakakalimutan natin na itong dahilan kung bakit may disisyon ngayon na Duterte versus H.O.R. Kaya hindi ko rin alam kung saan ang gagaling yung sugestyon na iyan. But let us be clear.

Whatever is the decision of the prosecution, on how to manage its case or how to secure its case and whether it thinks that its case can survive on one article alone at hindi na nila kailangan pa ng ebidensya or to offer evidence on Articles 1, the confidential funds, and Article 4 on grave threats at yung Article 3 on bribery and corruption. That's their call. That's their lookout. And kagaya ng isang batayang prinsipyo sa lahat ng hukuman, the prosecution's case must stand or fall on its own. So kung pahihinain ng pag-withdraw ng tatlong articles ang kaso na ito ng prosecution, that's theirs to bear. That's their burden. That's not a defense burden. And the defense will proceed as it deems fit. Lalo na sa pagkakataong ito, naggumugol ang taong bayan ng 38 araw. Marahil marami sa kanilang hindi pa pumapasok sa kanilang, sa kanikanilang trabaho para masubaybayan. Ang paglilitis na ito, at hindi lang iyon, gumugol tayo. ng government resources para sa trial na ito. In fact, I would even go as far as say that the withdrawal should already be one of the reasons why the articles of impeachment, entire articles of impeachment should be dismissed.

Isang pruweba, kahapon narinig natin, tinanong pa yung Daledge, forensic financial expert.

At pingilit na saan mo ba may attribute to. At ano binanggit niya? Confidential funds. And now we hear today the prosecution say that they're withdrawing the articles and delegations dun sa confidential funds. So yes, it goes into the very right of the respondent to due process. At kung ano man ang gagawin ng hukuman ito, Sa paglilitis na ito, hindi lang respondent ang apektado dito dahil ano man ang mangyari sa hukuman na ito, ito ang mensahe na ibinibigay natin sa taong bayan. Ito ang ehemplo at modelo na sinasabi natin sa mamamayang Pilipino na pwede ito. Pwede itong gawin sa vicepresidente ninyo. Kaya pwede rin itong gawin sa kahit kanino sa inyo kapag kayo ang naharap sa isang pagsasakdal. Hindi ko namin papayagan yan.

Anything else before the court makes a ruling on the matter?

Your Honor, please. The statement of the prosecution that the defense may consider other platforms is actually taken from the regular practice of the respondent herself. That instead of appearing in person before the impeachment court, She is stating a lot of things which have direct relation to the trial during Prescon. And it is from this light, Your Honor, that I suggested to the defense there are other platforms which they may consider if the desire is only to publicly share the evidence in support of the articles which are being trapped by the prosecution. Likewise, Your Honor, We take exception to the statement of the defense that by withdrawing the case of the prosecution is being weakened. We absolutely oppose that statement, Your Honor. It has been repeatedly said that the prosecution has four equally strong Articles of Impeachment. And it is only because of the consideration of what we believe is the best interest for all that we are retaining only one article. Nonetheless, Your Honor, without sounding repetitive, we are invoking the exclusive prerogative of the prosecution to decide on matters of evidence to be presented and ultimately submitting to the impeachment court on its exclusive power to try and decide impeachment cases. Thank you.

[unclear], yes, Senator Judge Alan.

Your Honor.

Before the Chair makes some?

I just want, Mr. Presiding Officer, with the permission, just to clarify, Madam, with your permission, Mr. President and Mr. Presiding Officer, when you say it is the best interest of all, can you clarify that? Are you talking about time?

That is one, Your Honor, including the resources of the Government and even the attention of the Honorable Senator-Judges considering the equally important legislative matters which are pending before the Senate, not to mention, Your Honor, the upcoming budget hearing for 2027.

Isa-isay natin iyon. First of all, time. There's no limit in the Constitution. We can finish this in January. We can finish this in February. We can take a break tomorrow and focus on the budget. It is our choice. Kung ako masusunod, unahin natin yung budget. May Super El Niño, hindi pa tapos yung flood control investigation, ang daming na tiwangwang na flood control, hindi nag-spend ang gobyerno, we're in an economic crisis not only because of our own doing but the whole world. I mean, all of us here, all of us here, legislators, share all this concern. Marami na nagsasabi na itong impeachment ay para sa mga politisyan. We know that's not true. We know it's an accountability mechanism. But we do know that the budget next to divine intervention and prayer is the most important. But I heard today we might even change our schedule na naman para mauna yung impeachment. So first of all, time. It's in the best interest of everyone that there's fairness and we take our time. There's no time limit. Who is saying that we have to finish this by November? I want it finished. But between finishing it, tapos may unfairness, and finishing it na unahin to kaso sa budget, Mr. Presiding Officer and Mr. Senate President, I'd like to put on record, I'm very uncomfortable with that. I think it will be a disservice to the Filipino people. Number two, government resources. It was the choice of the prosecution. You could have started with the ill-gotten wealth and stopped there. But you chose to spend 38 days. So, kung baga sa suntukan, sinuntok nyo na yung defense, then sasabihin nyo, to save time, huwag na kayong gumanti. And then sasabihin, yung platform ang gagamitin. So, this is my second question. Can the court issue subpoenas for their witnesses to attend their Facebook Live or press cons?

With all due respect, Your Honor, that was in response to the statement of the defense that the evidence of the prosecution have been seen by the public already.

Yes, ma'am. I understand. But that's the problem. You put all of your witness here in court in a formal process before the Filipino people. And this is an impeachable officer. There are only a few impeachable officers in our Constitution. And this is not purely a judicial process. As we all know, it's a political process also. Meaning, it's not enough dito na makonvict or ma-acquit yung reputation ng tao, yung certainty ng tao na siya'y guilty o hindi. So that's my other question. Assuming we don't give the defense the opportunity to present dun sa tatlong articles or dun sa dalawa na-present na, is the prosecution willing that we acquit her on those two articles?

Will we categorize the dismissal as an acquittal?

We believe, Your Honor, that by the withdrawal,

So

we see the problem that was created. No problem with the corona precedent and with the article that you have not... That you will not pursue because you did not present evidence in this court every day using government resources, getting people's attention. But for the two articles that you have already done your best and a lot of people agree with you, a lot of people disagree with you. But to say, sandali lang, winidraw namin o matuwa na kayong defense, wala na yan.

Is that the kind of democracy, the kind of legal system, the kind of justice that we want to give the Filipino people? Can you imagine the president? So kung galit ako sa COA, and I have barkada one-third of Congress, and I tell them, don't worry, i-present lang natin yung evidence, and then at the last minute, i-withdraw na lang, huwag na lang tayo mag formal offer. And then... Sa media na lang or whatever, sinira na natin yung isang tao. We already used government. So I don't know. Many of the senator judges here, I'm not at liberty to mention them, but tama din naman sila. If you withdrew everything, then wala rin naman choice ang defense. If they withdrew all four, then we have to stop this impeachment. Wala tayong pag-uusapan. But the reality is, when you withdraw one or more but leave one,

All the accusations still stand eh. Especially the evidence that you've already filed. So I do not know exactly how the presiding officer is going to rule but may I put on record the following things. Number one, we have to finish this impeachment process with the basic element of fairness. Of really justice. Kahit anong mangyari dito, acquit or convict, may matutuwa, may magagalit. But history will judge us whether or not yung elementary fairness and due process. Number two, priorities are priorities. Priority dapat yung budget. Kung masasabay natin, bakit hindi? In the last few months, pinagsabay natin session, budget, impeachment. But if we're gonna stop just for the sake na matapos tayong November, we're gonna suffer. The budget is not just passing it. Then third, Mr. President, honorable members of the prosecution, whatever the judgment, it has to be acceptable by the Filipino people. And just because there's no Codita, just because there's no people power, and just because the ratings, some of us are doing well, some of you are doing well, just because last month these guys are doing well, that doesn't mean... Natama yung tinatanim natin sa mga kabataan ngayon. Diba? Just like you, even during the Duterte administration, the Aquino administration, we have to do what has to be done. And we are in the moment and there are certain things that we all believe has to be done. But then 10 years later, we look back. So like the corona impeachment. It is what it is. But we look back and also learn from that. So I don't want to look back 10 years from now and say na just so that matapos natin ito ng November, eto yung mga ginawa namin. Kasi ang dami ng issues eh. Kasama yung threshold. Ang dami na. Dadagdagan pa ba natin ito by that? I am sorry Mr. Senate President for taking this time but it was a surprise to us kasi we more or less knew that you're gonna withdraw yung subribery ma'am. But to withdraw the other two, you know, it's something that we have to all take in. And at this point, hindi naman nag-o-object yung defense. But at this point, to say to the defense, you can or cannot do this, medyo, I just have to put on record, mabigat po talaga. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir.

Senator Judge Alan, with your permission, Senator Judge Alan, before I recognize Attorney Sheila, Senator Judge Alan, you mentioned something earlier. About dropping three, keeping one.

That's why it's unfair because the respondent cannot present evidence anymore.

I agree with the presiding officer that the bribery case falls under the corona precedent.

Yes, but

the truth is not. Dumaan man sa house yan, na sa media, you didn't present the witnesses and the documentary evidence here. So when you withdraw it, I don't think we have any obligation to ask the defense or to prohibit them from For the two other articles that we've spent the last 38 days presenting the evidence here, so it's not only the legal consequences, meaning acquitted or

In

theory, because this has happened in the United States in several occasions given our research on the matter, what if the prosecution decides, not this one, clearly they're not, decides to drop all? and completely, after presenting evidence, completely withdraw all.

That's where I agree with you and I just didn't name you a while ago. When you drop all, no problem because basically she's acquitted. And basically both sides will go to the public opinion but the prosecution will lose. Kasi ba't mo pa in-impeach ko either drop mo all?

This is after they presented also.

But if you drop all, That means suddenly you're not interested in prosecuting anymore. That means there's something happened that made you believe that now that person shouldn't be impeached. But when you leave even one, so whether that's ten, you withdrew nine, that's seven, you withdrew six, you leave one, then you're still telling the public she's still not, she should not. Spent a day more in office and should be impeached. So I agree with you, Mr. Presiding Officer, and with our colleagues here na ano pang iprepresent ng defense kung hindi naman present yung formal so hindi naman siya mako-convict. Yes, in terms of the legal consequences of having a verdict of conviction. But that's not our fault. That's the fault of the prosecution. Ayaw nila i-offer eh. Kung in-offer nila ngayon, tapos na tayo today eh. So, but it cannot also be the fault of the prosecution. Because you presented everything then stopped short and then withdrew, it's unfair to the prosecution and to the impeachable officer now to say na bahala na si Batman, bahala na kayo sa presscon, bahala na kayo sa social media mag-defense. That's why I asked the question, will we issue a supina, for example, if they want a hostile witness na taga SEC halimbawa or taga whatever, AMLA?

Mag-a-appear sa Facebook. Will we issue a supina? Hindi. Pupunta ba yung mga taga-AMLA, AMLC, kung sila'y magpapreskon? Hindi, Mr. President. So, that's the problem.

I

agree with you. Kung lahat tinuloy o lahat winidraw, wala tayong problema. Pero pagka, and kung yung lahat ng winidraw, hindi ka pa nag-present ng evidence, wala din tayong problema. Pero ang problema natin, nag-present ka na eh, hanggang dulo eh. Then you're gonna insist. that malakas pa rin yung case nyo on all four cases. Kasi if they're not presenting now and they say na, no, no, we admit she'll be acquitted in the two, then maybe I would ask the defense, or would it be acceptable if they admit na acquitted siya dun sa dalawa? Why present pa kung acquitted? Pero kung sasabihin, hindi lang namin i-present pero malakas ang case namin, pero kayo, hindi kayo pwede mag-present ng evidence, hindi po talaga mag-square, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Noted. Attorney Sheila and then the court will make some statements before the ruling.

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Just very quick responses to what the lead prosecutor said. She mentioned that... The comment on the platforms or giving the respondent the ability to present before any platform she chooses, whatever it is that she wants ventilated before the public was taken out of context or this was in response because she believes that the respondent had fully done that previously. We will no longer dignify that but I think we can all agree, everyone in this room can all agree that that is a very strange Thing to hear from a public officer in a formal trial.

Suggesting to the very person that they had indicted and they had hailed to court to, we will just stop, we will just withdraw after presenting everything that we think we have against you and then just go to the platform. I think that's very strange. Now, if we go to Section 1, Article 11, and again, Duterte versus H.O.R., the accountability mechanism does not

The court has also already said, and we don't even need to look far, we just need to read Section 1, Article 11. The accountability or the requirement of being accountable is demanded of every public officer, including the members of this honorable court and the public officers.

who are also members of the prosecution panel. Now, second, before any suggestion that this is because the impeachment proceeding is sui generis, we'd like to just say that being sui generis simply means that this proceeding or an impeachment proceeding is unique. It is a class of its own. But it is not a free pass to entirely disregard the Constitution, the law, and the rules. In fact, we have a case, Gas Corporation v. Sinchong. This is a 1979 case and I don't think anyone here will disagree in that the court said that the court already emphasized that while the standards of due process allows a certain latitude, The element of fairness should not be ignored. Here, if by the withdrawal of these three articles or two additional articles from the prosecution is seen to have some effect on how the defense will decide or how the respondent will decide to proceed with its presentation of evidence in chief. Then the prosecution is mistaken. Again, and for the record, we will proceed as we deem fit. Now, any objections that the prosecution will have on relevance, materiality, competence, they should make that at the appropriate time in accordance with Section 35 of Rule 132, Your Honor. And finally, just a quick reply to what the lead prosecutor said about time that they don't want to waste anymore.

The Court recalls the point raised by Senator Judge Bam Aquino. On July 15, when he proposed the tackling of the articles of impeachment alternately, meaning to say Article 1, prosecution and then defense. Article 2, prosecution and then defense.

Given this current issue and quandary and situation we find ourselves in,

I hope future impeachment courts will look at that particular situation and decision and consider another application of the rule because at that time, after hearing the parties, I believe after hearing the parties, the presiding officer said that is not in accordance with the rules. That's not how things are done. Perhaps in the future, that's one of the

Practical applications of this being a sui generis court to avoid similar situations such as this one because the presiding officer sees the point of Senator Judge Allen as well as the point raised by the respective councils for the parties but are nevertheless constrained to make a ruling based on precedent and based on available jurisprudence and basis on the matter. But again, I hope future impeachment courts, the young members of the Senate, Senator Judge Pangdinan, would

consider this matter at a future time. Yes, what is your pleasure, sir? Before the court's ruling.

Yes, just to, I recall, I remember the point raised by Senator Ban Makino then as early as July 15. And if I understand, if I recall correctly, The presiding officer ruled that that is an option provided both respondent counsels for the prosecution and the respondent would agree.

That was the collatilia that we would be open to allowing an amendment or at least an adjustment to the procedure provided both.

Councils for the Respondent and the Prosecutors would agree. Unfortunately, there was no agreement and therefore we had to proceed as we have proceeded. Just for the record.

Again, hindsight is always 20-20 and we have the benefit of history to learn from it and not keep on reinventing the wheel. So again, for the record, I hope the future impeachment courts will take note of this and hopefully learn from it. The Court will now make an extended ruling. For the past 39 days, the Court has been preparing extensively with the help of several lawyers as well as the Clerk of Court to make sure that we know the same if not more than each party or both parties combined in the hope that we can dispatch with any issue that will be brought upon before this Court so that we come up. with various possibilities. In the course of the 39-day trial, we have seen that sometimes come to pass that we meet them, sometimes we are short of them. Nevertheless, the court is constrained to make a ruling given that it's our last day before we go on recess and given that the prosecution has rested. Allow the court to read for the record.

It's extended ruling on the matter.

The court notes the prosecution's manifestation that it has completed the presentation of its evidence in chief and is resting its case. In resting its case, the prosecution manifested that Article 3 is withdrawn prior to the presentation of evidence. Hence, no further evidence shall be presented in support thereof on the basis of its manifestation filed last October 6. Furthermore, The prosecution formally withdraws as of today Articles 1 and 4 as well, following the conclusion of its evidence-in-chief and confirms that it shall not rely upon any previously presented evidence to sustain any of the aforementioned articles. For the record, the articles being withdrawn by the prosecution are as follows. Article 1, Misuse and Misappropriation of Confidential Funds. Article 3, Bribery and corruption with the Department of Education. Article 4. Assassination plot, grave threats, and inciting to sedition against the government. The prosecution having rested its case, it is now the turn of the respondent to present her evidence in chief, subject to the court's resolution of the prosecution's formal offer of documentary and object evidence and in accordance with the fixed schedule here under. However, before the defense is required to proceed, the court must act upon the prosecution's manifestation of withdrawal.

Article 11, Section 3-6 of the 1987 Constitution vests in the Senate the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. As such, Once the articles of impeachment have been transmitted and the Senate has acquired jurisdiction over them, their disposition cannot rest solely upon the unilateral discretion of the prosecution. By suppletory analogy,

Crespo v. Mogul teaches that once a charge has been formally lodged before a competent tribunal, any disposition of the case such as Such as its dismissal or conviction or acquittal of the accused rests on the sound discretion of the court. This is also consistent with the US impeachment cases of Judge George W. English and Judge Samuel B. Kent. Accordingly, the prosecution's manifestation does not by itself extinguish Articles 1, 3, and 4. At most, it presents a request for the approval of this court. In acting upon the request, the court exercises its independent constitutional authority, promotes judicial economy, and avoids requiring the respondent to extend time and resources defending charges that the prosecution has formally abandoned, consistent with the respondent and the people's right to speed the disposition of cases under Article 3, Section 16 of the Constitution. Given the foregoing, The court accepts and confirms the prosecution's manifestation. Articles 1, 3, and 4 from this point forward are deemed withdrawn subject to the following rulings and orders that this court hereby issues as follows. Number 1.

Articles 1 and 4 are deemed withdrawn with prejudice as against the respondent. Congress must never be light-handed or nonchalant in initiating and prosecuting articles of impeachment. Impeachment is not a charge that may simply be filed, pursued through the presentation of evidence and thereafter withdrawn without the respondent's consent. It is a grave constitutional process that affects not only the respondent but also the stability of government, the orderly conduct of public affairs, public confidence in constitutional institutions, and the nation as a whole, not to mention the expenses associated and related to this process. It likewise demands substantial time and resources from the impeachment court, the parties, and the public as well. Here, the prosecution has been afforded the opportunity to present its case and has consumed the court's time and institutional resources in doing so. Having elected to withdraw the articles after arresting its case, the prosecution must therefore accept the legal consequences of that withdrawal. The House of Representatives may not treat the impeachment process as a mere opportunity to file, withdraw, and subsequently revive substantially the same constitutional accusations at will. As explained in Bala-Erez v. Espanto

An action by the court with prejudice is treated as an adjudication on the merits that finally disposes of the controversy and bars a later action involving the same cause. Therefore, the effect of a withdrawal with prejudice means that Articles 1 and 4 may not be revived in this trial, refiled, reprosecuted, or transmitted anew against the same respondent during the same term and in this 20th Congress when founded upon the same allegations, the same acts or omissions, the same ultimate factual transaction, and the same constitutional accusation regardless of any change in the wording, caption, theory, arrangement of specifications, or composition of the prosecutorial panel. The test that the court will apply is substantive and not merely verbal. Despite changes in phrasing or legal characterization, a later article is the same if it seeks the removal of the respondent during the same term for the same operative conduct and ultimate constitutional charge during this 20th Congress. This bar applies only to impeachment as a process of constitutional removal, however. It does not grant immunity. Nor does it constitute double jeopardy against the prosecution for any underlying conduct. It does not bar criminal, civil, administrative, electoral, disciplinary, or other professional proceedings in accordance with law, each of which is governed by its own jurisdictional, substantive, evidentiary, and procedural rules. This distinction is consistent with Estrada v. Desierto

where the court rejected an attempt to use an aborted impeachment proceeding as a bar to subsequent criminal prosecution. Number 2. Article 3, however, as stated above, is deemed withdrawn without prejudice as against the respondent. Article 3 stands on a materially different procedural footing. The prosecution did not present or reduce evidence under this article. No evidentiary case under Article 3 was submitted to this Court upon which a finding or verdict could have been sustained, and the respondent was never placed in the position of having to answer a completed evidentiary presentation under that article. The distinction is deliberate. Articles 1 and 4 were brought through a completed prosecutorial evidentiary presentation before being withdrawn. Article 3 was never

Number 3.

Articles 1, 3, and 4 shall not be submitted for a vote or verdict by this Court anymore. As there is no longer any charge under Articles 1, 3, and 4 for adjudication in this trial, those articles shall not be submitted to the members of the Court for a vote or for a verdict of conviction or acquittal. This treatment follows the precedent established during the 2012 impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. When the prosecution abandoned five articles, the defense was not required to present evidence upon them and the withdrawn articles were not submitted to the senator judges for a vote. On March 12, 2012, acting upon the defense's motion to dismiss the prosecution's manifestation of withdrawal, the presiding officer stated,

Regarding the motion of the defense to formally dismiss Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the Articles of Impeachment, the impeachment court in Akokos decided not to entertain an act on the motion to dismiss with a clear understanding, however, that no evidence from both prosecution and defense panels will be received by the impeachment court on Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8. The presiding officer also then stated the corresponding consequence of that ruling. Furthermore, the members of the impeachment court will not render any vote on those articles and no verdict of the impeachment court will be rendered on the same. Accordingly, Articles 1, 3, and 4 shall no longer form part of the articles of impeachment to be decided in this trial and shall not be submitted to the members of the court for a vote or for a verdict of conviction or acquittal. 4.

Respondent need not present evidence in defense of Articles 1, 3, and 4. Because Articles 1, 3, and 4 will no longer be submitted for a vote or verdict, the respondent need not present evidence in chief to controvert or defend against these withdrawn articles. There is consequently no surviving charge under Articles 1, 3, and 4 requiring an evidentiary defense. Requiring defense witnesses, documents or exhibits solely to answer an article that will not be adjudicated upon by this Court would unnecessarily impose burden and litigation risk without the remaining adjudicative purpose. This conclusion is consistent with the Court's authority to control and manage the proceedings before it. Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure and Impeachment Trials authorizes the Court to issue orders necessary to carry the proceedings into effect and essential to the ends of justice, while Rule 6 permits the suppletory application of the Rules of Court, specifically, Rule 135, Section 5G, which recognizes the inherent power of the Court to control its processes and orders so that they may conform with law and justice.

In Santa Lucia, Realty v. City of Pasig, GR No. 166838, the Supreme Court recognized the inherent authority of a tribunal to control the disposition of matters on its docket with the economy of time and effort for the court, counsel, and litigants in consideration. Consistent with that authority and with the rule that evidence must be relevant to the fact and issue under Rule 128, No useful adjudicative purpose would be served by receiving evidence directed solely against charges that have already been withdrawn. The respondent's presentation of evidence in chief shall therefore address Article 2. The respondent may, however, identify, adopt, and rely upon evidence already adduced and forming part of the official record without needlessly presenting the same evidence anew provided that each item is relevant and otherwise admissible with respect to Article 2. Number 5. The subjudicial rule shall no longer cover the withdrawn articles, namely Article 1, 3, and 4.

Rule 18 requires the parties, their counsel and witnesses, and other persons covered by the rules to refrain from making public comments or disclosures concerning the merits of matters pending adjudication before the impeachment court. Upon the effectivity of this order, The separate merits of Articles 1, 3, and 4 are no longer pending for adjudication. Accordingly, the prosecutors, the respondent, the respective counsels and witnesses may publicly address, explain, and respond to any matter contained in those withdrawn articles. In particular, the respondent, given that she will no longer have an opportunity or need to defend against those articles through the presentation of evidence before the court, may therefore answer them. Present her account, defend her conduct, reputation in the course of public discourse. This freedom extends only to Articles 1, 3, and 4, however, and does not authorize the covered parties by Rule 18 to make any public comment or disclosure concerning the merits of the retained Article 2 which remains pending before this Court. The freedom to discuss the allegations in the withdrawn articles, however, does not authorize the unrestricted disclosure or dissemination of evidence presented in connection with them. Withdrawal does not declassify evidence, remove an existing seal or protective order, waive any privileged or extinguished duties arising from privacy, statutory secrecy, witness protection, legal ethics, confidentiality undertakings, or the sensitive character of any material. Evidence subject to any such protection shall not be copied, reproduced, or photographed, circulated, published, or uploaded, or transmitted, except as may be expressly permitted by law. Public statements concerning the withdrawn articles must therefore be made without disclosing protected evidence, if any there be, in accordance with existing laws and regulations. Number 6. Preservation, public access, and controlled distribution of official record. All pleadings, manifestations, motions, transcripts, stenographic notes, marked documents, admitted exhibits, excluded or rejected exhibits, formal offers, objections, resolutions, and rulings relating to Articles 1, 3, and 4 shall remain in the official rollo and in the custody of the Court. No such material shall be removed or expunged merely because the article to which it originally related has been withdrawn. Once a document or exhibit has been received, submitted, or otherwise made part of the proceedings, its preservation serves the integrity, completeness, transparency, and institutional accountability of the official record.

Consistent with Rule 136, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, and the Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Toledo, AAM No. P133124. Retention in the rollo does not by itself confer admissibility, probative value, or evidentiary weight. The court may segregate, seal, redact, restrict, or otherwise place material under controlled access without removing it from the official record. Expunction, disposal, or destruction shall require a specific lawful order and compliance with applicable records management rules. Preservation of the complete official record is distinct From unrestricted public dissemination. Article 3, Section 7 and Article 2, Section 28 of the Constitution supports meaningful public access to these proceedings subject to limitations and reasonable conditions prescribed by law. Accordingly, the Court may restrict the online publication of unredacted exhibits containing privileged, private, bank, security, sensitive, or otherwise legally protected information consistent with Republic Act numbers 10173, 1405, and 6426. As recognized in rare request for radio TV coverage of the trial in the Sandigan Bayan of Joseph Estrada, AM 014-03SC, the public character of a proceeding does not prevent the tribunal from regulating the manner by which its records are transmitted and or disseminated. Therefore, before any attachment is published, uploaded, or otherwise made publicly accessible, the Clerk of Court shall classify it as A. Public, B. Public in redacted form, C. Available only through controlled or supervised access, D. Sealed, or E.

Subject to a separate protective order. The inclusion of attachment in a formal offer or its retention in the rollo shall not by itself require its publication online. The classification assigned by the Clerk of Court, together with any applicable law, privilege, sealing order, or protective order, shall govern the manner and extent of public access. Complete and unredacted official copies shall remain available to the members of the Impeachment Court and to the parties, except where the Court has sustained a privilege or imposed another lawful limitation. No public access restrictions shall impair the respondent's right to know, examine, and answer the evidence offered against her. To implement these access classifications, the Clerk of Court shall establish a procedure for public requests, supervised inspection, The issuance of redacted copies and the prompt presentation of challenges to an access restriction. Every restriction shall identify its legal basis, scope, responsible custodian, and duration. The original physical and digital files including their metadata, chain of custody information, exhibit markings, classification, history, and access logs shall be preserved as part of the complete and authoritative record of this trial. The non-uploading or restricted publication of any material is solely an access control measure and shall not constitute its expunction, destruction, concealment or When confidential or sensitive attachments to a formal offer of evidence are reproduced or distributed for official use, every copy furnished to a senator, judge, or party, a prosecutor, respondent, clerk of court, or other authorized recipient shall bear a unique recipient-specific watermark. The watermark shall, as far as practicable, identify the authorized recipient. The individual copy number, the date and time of issuance, and the document's access classification. The clerk of court shall maintain a distribution register, recording each copy issued, the recipient to whom it was issued, and the person responsible for its custody. No recipient shall remove, obscure, alter, or defeat the watermark, or reproduce, transmit, or permit the unauthorized reproduction or dissemination of the protected material. Recipient-specific water marking is an accountability and traceability measure. It does not alter the material's evidentiary character, authenticity, admissibility, or inclusion in the official roleo. 7.

Submission of the Prosecution's written formal offer and its limited publication in the Senate website. With the foregoing, the prosecution shall make its written formal offer of documentary and object evidence in support of Article 2 within 10 days from today or until October 23. Accordingly, the respondent shall have 10 days from receipt of the formal offer, whenever that date should be, to file and furnish the prosecution with their comments and objections. The court shall resolve the formal offer. and the respondent's objection thereto, accordingly. The written formal offer of evidence, exhibit index, and rulings of the Court may be uploaded to the Senate website, subject to all the aspects and respects to the classifications, reduction, confidentiality, access control, protective measures prescribed under No. 6 as stated earlier. The inclusion of any document, exhibit, or other attachment in the formal offer of evidence or its retention in the Rolio shall not by itself authorize or require its publication or upload to the Senate website. No attachment shall be uploaded unless it has first been reviewed and classified by the Clerk of Court pursuant to No. 6 in this order and its publication is permitted and permitted under the assigned classification and applicable law privilege sealing order or protective order. Where publication is permitted only in redacted form, only the duly redacted version shall be uploaded. Materials classified for controlled or supervised access, sealed materials, and materials subject to a separate protective order shall not be uploaded except upon further order of the court.

Number eight, schedule of trial dates. As an update on the progress of these proceedings, today marks the Court's 39th actual trial date, covering 47 trial days if you count the whole-day trial as two trial dates. The Court is presently ahead of its projected trial schedule under the pre-trial order

We will only be ahead by three trial dates by November 9. And considering the budget hearings, the ASEAN-related break, and other holidays, Eight available trial dates will be lost in the month of November.

In order to catch up on these lost trial dates, the schedule for trial dates for November shall be therefore as follows. November 9, beginning at 10 a.m., the Court will convene the Senate session in the afternoon and resume trial again whenever we are done, similar to what we did last October 8. On November 10, it will be for the whole day from 10 a.m. to 6, 6.30 p.m. On November 11, we shall begin at 10 and the Senate may convene as a legislative body again in the afternoon as the case may be or as may be required by the plenary session of the Senate. November 12 and 13 will be for the whole day from 10 to 6, 6.30 p.m. November 19 and 20 will be for the whole day from 10 to 6.30 p.m. On November 23, it shall only be from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The following week is November 30, a Monday which is a holiday. We shall decide on the schedule in December as the case may be hopefully at the beginning of November to give the parties adequate time. Number 9. The respondent shall have 26 calendar days from today. within which to prepare for her presentation of evidence in chief, which shall commence on November 9, 2026, without prejudice, of course, to any remedies, motions, or manifestations the respondent may make in the course of the recess and on this date of the trial. Finally, number 10. The respondent is reminded of the five-day notice rule.

In complying with the trial dates as earlier stated, in order to afford the opposing party time to prepare, especially given the fact that the pretrial order does not contain the list of witnesses the respondent has for Article 2, which therefore makes the five-day rule relevant in regard to these proceedings. Also, After the formal offer of evidence and when they submit their written list of witnesses for the trial on November 9 onwards, the court would also expect the respondent to give an estimate of the number of witnesses it shall have and the trial dates it shall require in order to present its evidence. Again. To recall, the pretrial order contains a generic statement of trial dates, 62 or 61 if I remember for the prosecution, divided by article. But in the case of the respondent, they mentioned 30-31 days for the total presentation of evidence in chief of the respondent without dividing it up per article. So hopefully, by the time the respondent submits its request for the issuance of subpoena, or witness to be presented, they shall also inform the court how many trial dates they need for us to be able to find dates in December if it is necessary and as the case may be in the meantime, the court will simply set trial dates for November. As we did in September when we set the trial dates for October, the same is going to be true for December. We shall set the trial dates for December as the case may be and as may be necessary hopefully in early... November for the information and consideration of the parties. Forgive me for the extended ruling. So ordered.

Your Honor.

Attorney Sheila is recognized. What is your pleasure, ma'am?

Again, good afternoon, Your Honor. We have heard the extended ruling of the presiding officer today in respect of the withdrawal of three articles of impeachment that the prosecution made today. Just a few manifestations subject to and without prejudice. to whatever legal remedy that the respondent would decide to take.

The lady may proceed.

Number one, Your Honor, we will ask for a copy today of the extended ruling so that we can also discuss it with the Vice President, with the respondent. And second, this Court had given schedule of the resumption of hearings starting from November 9. 10, 11 onwards but I presume that this is of course without prejudice to the ruling of this court on the offer of the prosecution because if this court decides that every evidence submitted or offered by the prosecution even on the remaining article of article 2 then the only necessary course is to dismiss the entire

case and the articles of impeachment. And so I would take that the November 9th schedule, the assumption of hearing, is not really to presume that the prosecution or persecution of the respondent will continue on set dates.

And just for the record,

If I may interrupt, Your Honor.

Kindly allow her to finish.

I understand that, Your Honor, but I have...

addition to that, in fact, the term, I know they will object to the term persecution, but this is on record and this is part of the records of this case. In fact, this is under paragraphs 140 and 141 of the answer of the respondent says here, those supposed records of the CJGPA hearings certainly do not contain reliable findings of liabilities on the part of the respondent since at the time of those hearings and to date. The supposed co-observations have not yet attained finality. And the subsequent paragraph 141 reads as, Those hearings were in every sense a public display of modern-day persecution and wielding of power by those who controlled those hearings. A number of those are still the same members of the Congress who sat in proceedings this year before the Committee on Justice as part of the affirmative allegations in the Answer of the Respondent. Now, I say that as a formal reaction and forgive me, Your Honor, if I will have to say that as of this point, the defense would like to register a strong objection to the ruling insofar as it now allows what seems to be unregulated.

and unbridled exercise of statements that can be made before the public, before the different fora, platforms, to borrow the words of the lead prosecutor, in respect of the relaxation of Rule 18. We would like to ensure that the court understands this. The essence of the subjudice rule really is not limited to the practical value of regulating the proceeding. It actually goes into the integrity or maintaining the integrity of the proceedings. That's why parties are generally prohibited from speaking about the merits of the case before third parties, before the media, and outside. The court because it runs or every statement runs the risk of tainting the integrity of the proceedings. Now I know and we understand that the justification for not even a relaxation but what seems to be an entire abandonment of Rule 18 relating to the prosecution's allegations and articles. One, confidential funds. and Article 4 on grave threats and Article 3, bribery. That seems to us, we don't know, and I find it difficult to understand how that ruling or abandonment of Rule 18, even as this trial is still ongoing, and while parties are still litigating this case on the remaining article, will contribute to maintaining the integrity of these proceedings. If at all, We now have what seems to be a, what is this called in ordinary parlance, an FFA, a free for all, a

free for all type of accusing the respondent anywhere and everywhere. So we actually object to the abandonment of Rule 18 if we are to be true and faithful. To the rational and wisdom of the subjudicial rule that not only permeates this court, it permeates the entire judicial system. Because it is needed to maintain the integrity of the proceedings, there should not be any single instance or occasion that this should be abandoned in the middle of trial and right before the defense or respondent presents her case.

The gravest consequence that this now causes to this entire proceeding is this. The abandonment of Rule 18 and on the rule against subjudicial statements or out-of-court statements of the parties, complainants, etc., comes at the heel of the prosecution's withdrawal of the articles of impeachment. In which they had already presented and completed their presentation.

And now, the abandonment of Rule 18 binds both parties. Both the prosecution and the respondent.

I know that the court will say that, well, the respondent is given the equal opportunity to do as she pleases with respect to the allegations. She can say a lot of things. She can use all the platforms in the words of the lead prosecutor to avail of these platforms to present her evidence through these platforms. I'm sorry, Your Honor, when the Vice President was held to this formal proceeding in this court and honorable members of this court took their oaths, senators, judges, the respondent really envisioned a fair and impartial proceeding geared only to one and one, one and one, and that is what? Justice. Now, whatever justice means for both sides or for each one of us, sa lahat ng mga nakikinig sa atin dito. Batay sa ating kanya-kanyang paniniwala. Sa tingin ko, walang pag-iimbot na dapat nating tanggapin ng lahat ng prosesong dapat na pagdadaanan ng pagbilitis na ito ay dapat na ayon din sa batas at sa garantiya na binibigay ng ating konstitusyon. Now, we've heard also over and over again, expediency. or the practicality of the proceedings. That's why it would seem to me, that's why we're asking for a copy of the extended ruling that may clarify, Your Honor, if by the extended ruling, is the respondent now explicitly being prohibited from presenting any evidence without confirming to this court whether or not we intend to present anything. Just so mapakinggan din ng ating taong bayan, is the respondent now explicitly being prohibited from presenting or from making decisions with respect to her presentation of her evidence in chief by that extended ruling?

The effect of counsel of that ruling is that since articles 1, 3, and 4 will not be adjudicated upon by the court nor put to a vote, It does not prevent the respondent from making concomitant manifestations in regard to it, but with respect to presenting evidence on the withdrawn articles, based on the precedent in the corona ruling and the citations quoted by the court, it would serve no useful... What purpose would it serve, counsel?

Can you

kindly enlighten the members of the court so

that we would also

see the respondent's point?

Yes, Your Honor. I have here the Corona president. There is a big, big difference between the Corona being cited as president and to justify whatever prohibition that this court will apply on the respondent on how to proceed with the presentation of her case in chief. On February 28, 2012, the lead prosecutor, Tupas, manifested that they will no longer be presenting evidence for five of the eight articles of impeachment. And later on, it was clarified to be a withdrawal of those five articles.

The prosecution requested for some days to file their FOE which was actually granted by the court. And then the defense moved for and was granted five days to file their comment upon receipt of the FOE. Now, unlike in this case, in the corona trial, the withdrawal was done before the prosecution presented any evidence on those articles. Here, Your Honor, there is no doubt. The prosecution took their time and completed their presentation. And now, what we now want to impart to the public is this is her vice president. She was tried, held to the court on alleged indictment charges upon articles, four articles of impeachment. And the prosecution consisting of the public and prosecutors from the present

Congress of the House of Representatives, and with the addition of the panel for prosecution consisting of private prosecutors. They did all this. They presented their evidence. The court allowed them time, gave them opportunity, gave them platform. But now, since they withdrew, your vice president can no longer speak or defend herself from those allegations. May we just put on record that, just for the record, Your Honor, we find that not only a bit unfair, I would say it's completely unfair. But whether this is something that the court will again consider on its own or ruminate on it perhaps today or in the subsequent days or while the Formal offer and the comment of the respondent to that formal offer is pending.

I think we all have to ask ourselves, what is it that we all want from these proceedings?

Fairness, impartiality. Every day we come here, we pray.

Nananalangin tayo sa poong may kapal at sa lumikha sa ating lahat. Bigyan niyo kami ng lahat ng lakas ng loob at tibay ng dibdib, talas ng isip, tatag ng loob para tuktin ang aming tungkulin bilang mga public servants, bilang mga hukom, bilang mga partido, bilang mga abogado. Bigyan niyo kami ng panahon para sundin kung ano ang sinasabi sa ilalim ng ating saligang batas. Everyday we do that.

Ang sa amin lang ho, yun ho bang extended ruling ngayon, really allows or gives that kind of fairness to the vice president and to the respondent. At hindi lang yun ano, this is not a selfish ask.

Katulad na sinabi ko kanina, whatever it is that we will do here, this will set an example for everyone.

When someone is held to the court, his standard or her standard will be what he or she has seen here.

I'll be winding up, Hon. Luistro.

raising a reconsideration.

It's a manifestation, counsel.

It's a manifestation and an objection.

It's a manifestation which the court intends to make of not. Kindly proceed, Attorney Sheila. Kindly let her finish, Honorable Luistro.

Yes, Your Honor. And given what I had read for the record, one of the affirmative defenses of the respondent is that persecution. So we will do, without preempting our presentation, And whatever it is, whatever objection that the prosecution will have on our presentation, we will meet it when the time comes, Your Honor.

Atty. Sheila, may I ask, again, for the information of the Court and enlightenment of the Court as well, again, the Court recalled the proposal of Sen. Judge Bam na alternate na lang. This would have been completely avoided if we allowed that but the parties did not agree. So after the first article, nag-present yung defense, i-withdraw man later on, then the objections being raised by the lead prosecutor would not have any basis. Correct? But the court decided to follow the rules given that there was no agreement between the parties. So may the court ask. Given the withdrawal of the articles, is there an adjudicative purpose to allowing the respondent to present evidence on the withdrawn articles? Or is the basis the right to be heard on those articles because the prosecution was heard on those articles? The question is, is there an adjudicative purpose?

Involving that.

Without going into the details of our presentation, Your Honor, I think the most important adjudicative purpose of this trial really is to provide justice. And I will relate that to the second point that you had made. And this was also something that the court had already... Reminded the prosecution, it says that the main duty of the prosecution is not really to convict but to secure a just conviction. And therefore, if the conviction is unjust, it should not pursue that conviction. Now, all we're saying, Your Honor, is this. Why is it that it would seem now that the defense is being limited to what she can only do in terms of her presentation of her case in chief. Hindi naman po kami yung nag-withdraw ng articles. Hindi rin naman po kami yung nag-desisyon para sa prosecution na gawin nila ito. And with respect to the earlier suggestion of Senator Bam, with due respect, I don't think... I don't see how that could have affected whatever happened today. Because if we did that then, or we didn't do it, we really didn't, mababago ba noon yung ginawa ng prosecution that they completed presentation of their articles on all three, on articles

1, and 4.

Atty. Sheila, can I cut you short? Yes, because you would have been heard. The respondent would have been heard right after the presentation of an article. And should they decide to withdraw later on, then both sides would have been heard already. That's the... Unfortunately, again, that's not what the rule says and unfortunately too, the parties did not agree. With your permission, Atty. Sheila, Sen. Judge Bam, Bam's name was mentioned and alluded to so I'll recognize him for a bit.

On another point, Mr. Presiding Officer, nais ko lang kung linawin sa both parties kung ano ba yung pinag-uusapan natin. So, Atty. Sheila, are you saying that You wish that these articles are not dropped and that we continue as we had originally planned? Or would you want to talk to your client first if whether she would prefer that these articles be dropped? Kasi itong desisyon ni presiding officer, by the way I'm gonna ask the same question kay Honorable Jinky rin because nabanggit rin ni presiding officer na once Matupad tong ruling na to. With prejudice. I had to clarify with my colleagues who are lawyers what that means. That means that once these are withdrawn, di na to pwedeng ibalik ulit, no?

Wouldn't you want to discuss that first among your team and with Atty. Sheila? Ang dating po kasi sa amin, you don't want these articles to be dropped. Would you want to discuss that with your client first to be sure kung nice bang may dadrop? Nice ba itong...

So that's just my point. Would both parties want to discuss this with your respective teams? Because medyo mabigat po itong ruling na ito. And then Mr. Presiding Officer, I'd also like to clarify, is it the court's decision or the prosecution's decision to drop? Articles. Ito po ba'y hinaharap nila sa atin para tayo po'y mag-decision or decision po ito ng prosecution na huwag na'y talakay yung ibang mga artikulo?

Hiniling ng prosecution, pinagpasahan ng Korte. It is a ruling of the Chair that, like any other ruling, is subject to either appeal or reconsideration of the proper time once they have had enough time to, as you said, either consult their clients or reflect

So

procedurally, can the defense move for a reconsideration of the court's decision?

I think what Attorney Sheila is saying, she did not object to the motion of the prosecution to withdraw, only that because the situation is that a withdrawn article will not be voted upon anymore, there is no mechanism within the rules to allow the presentation of evidence on an article or on a charge that will not be voted upon by the court anymore, as we discussed. In the sidebar earlier.

May I clarify that? Is that correct, Attorney Sheila? You're not objecting to the withdrawal of the article. You're objecting to the ability to address them. Is that correct?

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Thank you for asking that question. I think the manifestation, my manifestation earlier was clear enough. I, in fact, said, and I would repeat as far as I can recall, I said that this decision to withdraw those articles is the prosecution's lookout. And so, whatever consequences of those withdrawal were, they should be able to bear alone without any, without the respondent suffering any consequences from that decision. Now, of course, we take the suggestion that we will consult with the client and we will. However, we really need to record the fact that our objection on whatever idea that may be floating at this moment That this decision of the prosecution will somehow make decisions for how the respondent or the defense will present our evidence or how long it will take us. All I'm saying, Your Honor, is that whatever decision of the prosecution in terms of withdrawing all these articles should not preempt the decision of the respondent. So kung may pre-presentan po kaming ebidensya, And we will, or that we will be needing a certain number of days para ipresent yung mga ebedensya na yun, let the respondent decide because I think it is her right to secure her case from the allegations already propounded and exposed to the public before this court hearing.

Okay, thank you, Mr. President.

I

see the point of the, of Attorney Silla in that Whatever the prosecution did today will not tie the hands of the respondent in presenting its evidence without prejudice to the prosecution objecting at the appropriate time to whatever evidence they may present, again, in accordance with the rules. But allow me to continue, Atty. Sheila. The relaxation of Rule 18 insofar as the withdrawn articles. Again, just to clarify and enrich the records. was in order to afford the parties, not in the way that the lead council correspondent viewed it, but more, again, in the interest of fairness. Because, as he said, pinagbawal na ngang pagtanggol yung sarili sa loob ng hukuman, bawal pa rin pagtanggol yung sarili sa labas, then that would really be definitely unfair. The reason behind the relaxing of Rule 18 was more to afford actually the respondent to respond in the manner she may deem fit, both in this courtroom, again, subject to the objections to rulings of the court, and outside. So the intention was really not to...

Nakalimutan ko yung sinabi mong FF. Ang alam ko kasi MMA eh. Free for all. Alam ko kasi MMA. Not for it to be a free for all. But to really allow the respondent to be able to... More for her actually. Because as you have seen, violations of Rule 18 have more been found by the court on the other side than on your side. And one final question, Atty. Sheila. If all the articles were dropped, And this case is completely withdrawn. As I asked Senator Judge Allen earlier, the opportunity for the respondent to respond to the finished articles as well will not be available and there would be no procedure

by which it can be allowed. The difference is now there is still a remaining article and this court still exists. The procedures are still there. Hence, you are correct, Attorney Sheila, that it is without prejudice to anything that the defense may wish to do subject to the objections of the other party, if any there be, and subject to the ruling of the court. At the appropriate time, we will make those rulings, and at the appropriate time, you will make those motions. At the appropriate time, if objections are made, they will be made as well. Senator Judge Riza. On that point, Senator Judge Pangalina is

recognized.

Just on the point earlier raised by the Presiding Officer very quickly just for the record Mr. Presiding Officer if the counsel for the respondents feel strongly about the issue of the subjudice ruling ruling, I would have thought that it would have been an opportunity for the counsel for the respondents, and the

And the respondent herself to make use of other platforms to be able to articulate because precisely they're no longer bound by the subjudicial rule. But if they feel strongly about it, I have no problem reconsidering the ruling on Rule 18, Mr. President. Just for the record, if that's the preference of the respondents. I'm more than open to reconsider.

There is no period to seek or reconsideration or appeal the ruling of the chair in the rules. Therefore, this can be done at any time, even after the respective parties consult with their clients. Senator Judge Antiveras is recognized. What is your pleasure, ma'am? Thereafter, Senator Judge Pia.

Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer. Pending po yung pagsabi ng defense sa Korte kung paano nila gustong mag-proceed at pending yung aksyon na pwedeng kunin ng Korte sa pagsabi na yun as is our prerogative. Ako po, Mr. Presiding Officer, for one, gusto kong marinig yung tugo ni Vice Presidente. Sa mga aligasyon na inihaharap sa kanya ng prosecution sa kasong ito. Salamat po, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Good afternoon to everyone. Thank you everyone. We note, Mr. Presiding Officer, that you mentioned that yung abandonment of Rule 18 is really for the benefit of the defense, no? Para makapagsalita nga sila.

And I would assume that they appreciate that, but His Honor will recall when we were discussing in the corner earlier, I had voiced out my position that magugulat ang defense dito sa issue na ito kasi ako nagulat. Baka iba sa inyo hindi gulat, no? Pero ako po gulat. Hindi ko alam na mangyayari ito. It appears that the defense is also surprised. So I had said that we should give the defense time. To decide how they want to react. Just because magbilis na nagdesisyon ng prosecution whether this has been something they've been thinking about for a day, a week, overnight. Well, the defense is the one being accused. The defense is the one who has to defend themselves and we have enough constitutional provisions, legal provisions to protect the right of the defense. And one of them is to give them enough time to decide what is the proper course of action. So when we asked the lead defense lawyer, ano yung next, I think she said what she needed to say which is they are reserving their right. to do whatever they deem necessary. So, they may, they may decide na we will make use of the presiding officer's decision to abandon Rule 18. Pero maybe we have to give them time to think about it. Kasi if they will insist in whatever form, and I don't know what form that is, that they want to present evidence whether that is by way of a one-sided speech, whether they will ask the different lawyers to present to offer the evidence that they would have offered if if natuloy ito or they will just have one spokesperson to say this this is what the defense of the of the senate of the vice president would have been or if they want to say and even bring her here to have defended themselves we don't know at least i don't know so all i'm saying is we need to give them sufficient time whether that's the whole afternoon i don't know an hour let's ask them because To immediately say, and I know the presiding officer is saying this was for their benefit, so precisely give them time to decide how they want to avail of this benefit or this right that this court would like to give them that you can now speak about it in public. Pero yung nag-iisip pa lang sila how they will now defend the reputation of their client or they have to ask their client how she wants to proceed, that directly affects if Rule 18 will be abandoned or not. Because nga, if si Bing, wala na kami pe-present dito, free for all talaga, o di they might want to avail of it, pero in 24 hours? In 48 hours? Tomorrow? That's their right. Because you can't say, nobody can say anything, then suddenly, pwede na. And what they thought would happen next was that they would be presenting evidence, and that's not what's happening next. So, that's all I'm saying. And the last point I want to raise, Mr. Presiding Officer is, every politician knows and every human being knows that their reputation is what they have. Ano ba nilalagay natin pag namatay tayo? He was a good father. She was a good mother. He or she was a good public servant. Diba? So when you say, ano pang ipagtatanggol niyo? Well, it's who you are. Yun ang ipagtatanggol mo. Ididefend mo. Now, it's up to the

Senator judges to decide if yung defense na yun is enough to acquit the accused. But they, whoever the accused is, has that right. So pag tinanong natin, bakit pa? Yun yung reason kung bakit. Who here would like to be accused in a formal setting? This is a formal setting. This is an impeachment court. Tapos sabihin na wala ka naman i-defend na eh. No meron. It's who you are. It's what you stood for. It's what you were voted for. You have the right in the same forum to address that. So yun lang naman sa akin. And I'm not dictating how the defense wants to do it. I'm just saying that I do believe that they should be given time to decide how they represent their client based on what they want to do and what their client wants to do. Thank you, Mr. President. If

at all, Senator Judge Pia, again, we will be going on a recess and we will be resuming after 26 days.

And if at all, any remedies the parties seek to avail of, I corrected that attorney shill earlier, not only outside but within this court as well. For example, by way of analogy, I'm sure as lawyers you're also aware of this, without guiding or trying to teach the respondent, there is such a thing as tender of excluded evidence at any point in time or akin to it.

which can be availed of by both parties actually, should any evidence be excluded for one reason or another either in formal offer or when testimony is offered. So there are remedies both within and outside the court and we will afford the parties time, more than three weeks in fact, to be able to prepare and decide what they want to do by the time we resume.

presiding officer but included in your ruling is that rule 18 is abandoned. So I think I leave it up to the respondent if that's something that they are officially bringing to the attention of the impeachment court then there will have to be modification of the ruling if the presiding officer will agree. So I'm just saying that seems to be pending right now. We cannot leave this hanging because otherwise then as soon as we step out It is the free for all. So the respondent, I think, should be given an opportunity to ask if there's anything they want to ask. If they don't, then they don't.

If I may?

Yes, Judge Pangilinan. On this point?

Yes, on Rule 18.

As I said earlier, I am willing to move for its reconsideration. But not now because we will have to debate it. Perhaps if the court will agree. Pending a possible motion for reconsideration on when we resume, then Rule 18 should continue to be enforced and not abandoned. If that is a middle ground to be able to move forward. And only because I actually expected that the respondents and counsel would agree to it.

With the permission

of Senator Judge Pangilinan. Again, as the Presiding Officer said earlier, consideration for suspending Rule 18 or making Rule 18 no longer applicable to Articles 1, 3, and 4. is so as not to shackle the respondent. Again, an allegation has been made that the respondent is not allowed to answer within the court. And then there's Rule 18 and the respondent is not allowed to answer outside of the court. So it was an attempt to, given the absence of procedures, to allow it that the respondent is not yet availed of. So can we do it this way with the permission of Senator Judge Pangilinan? Since it was designed really going to the intent of that ruling for the respondent, after consultation with your client in order to find out her disposition according to Senator Judge Pia, kindly indicate it and with your permission, Senator Judge Pangilinan, your motion for reconsideration will be...

Activated once such intention is made by the respondent. And if the court will authorize the presiding officer to rule on it during the recess, then I will rule on it during the recess to save on time as Senator Judge Pia said earlier.

Say it on the mic properly. Can you second if you want? Yes,

Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer. So moved that we authorize the Presiding Officer to rule on that particular matter during the recess.

And I second the motion, Mr. President.

So

the motion of Senator Judge Pangalinan is taken in advisement in the meantime by the Presiding Officer and upon...

After notice from the respondent as regards their intent in regard to this matter, the court will act accordingly on the motion for reconsideration cum appeal of the Honorable Senator Judge Pangilinan even during recess while the court is in recess. Is that okay, Senator Judge Pangilinan? I see him raising a thumbs up sign. Yes, Senator Judge Villanueva, what is your pleasure?

Yes, Mr. President, thank you. First of all, again, let me place on record that this representation joins the motion of Senator Pangilinan and supports it fully. Mr. Presiding Officer, just one administrative matter that I would like to seek from this

May we be given a copy of the ruling kanina Mr. President because I think all of us are asking for it. I'd like to put on record that 90% of the ruling of the chair I would agree and support but I also have to say 5% I have strong reservations at kasama na po dyan yung sa Rule 18. Hindi po ako naniniwala o mataas po yung aking reservation na binibigyan ng opportunity yung respondent to speak freely doon sa tatlong articles na inabandon because I believe she also deserves to be heard here in this court kahit na inabandon, Mr. President. That's my personal I would submit to the wisdom of the court, the majority, and of course, the defense to speak with the respondent, with the vice president.

What she desires to do. Another 5%, Mr. President, I have to put on record, I actually don't agree and I will give my comments through writing. Yesterday, Mr. President, I made mention in this very rostrum that finally, finally I see something that makes a lot of sense. When we talk about this impeachment proceedings especially when I heard about the extensive presentation of Atty. Cabrera and I would say for the first time Mr. President na naging very interesting ang impeachment trial kaya hindi rin ako nabibigla na i-withdraw yung tatlong article but it is also Right to give ample time for the respondent to talk about it here in this court, Mr. President. Mahalaga na pagkatapos po siyang paratangan, left and right, mabigyan din po siya ng pagkakataong ipagtanggol yung kanyang sarili kahit na

We need draw itong mga articles of impeachment na ito, itong tatlo na ito, Mr. President. And last but not the least, I just want to put on record, sabi ko ng matatanda sa amin sa Bulacan, ang naglalakad ng matulin kung matinig ay malalim. So I'm just reminding everyone of that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Sir, Presiding Officer, I just want to appreciate your

Explanations and the openness and of course the statements of Senator Pangilinan, Senator Riza, Senator Joel, Senator Judge Pia. May I just end my thoughts on this since we are going to take a break and something for all of us senator judges to reflect on. Same thing with the prosecution and defense. Next year, 2027, will be the 40th anniversary

Biblically, after the Israelis or the Jews spent 40 years in the desert instead of one week, it was said that it wasn't only the disobedience but because God wanted them to be conquerors in the new land but they had a slave mentality. So it took one generation or 40 years to Actually enter the promised land. There's a lot of politics also there given the world so don't mind that side. What's my point? In 1906, we actually transitioned from Spanish to English in our courts and that signified a more open and inclusive court system. In 1946, we actually left the Commonwealth.

Symbolizing we're leaving now the colonialist and we now have a free Filipino government. In 1986, we had EDSA revolution. And now 2026, if you actually Google or AI, they say 2026 is a year of renewal. In what aspect? I leave it up to everyone. So this is my point, Mr. President. The prosecution wants a conviction. The defense wants a acquittal. The senate and senator judges wants to be judged fairly that we did in fact stand upon the law and the constitution and we did our best but that we did dispense justice. So this is my point Mr. President.

If we follow the constitution, if

there is due process and fairness Then despite the many, many, many legal issues brought up in and out of this impeachment court, then we would have strengthened both our Constitution next year and our democracy. But if not, then on the 40th year of our Constitution, we might break it. It is fragile. Democracy is fragile. So we are in a unique situation because Winidraw nga yung tatlong articles pero yung dalawa fully vented na pero natira yung isa. But I agree with all of you, dear colleagues, who said let's give the defense a chance muna. Let's look what happens when we get back up November 9 and I think there's wisdom in what the Senate President and the Presiding Officer said. So on a more minor issue, Mr. President, So I was just looking at the schedule. No problem on November 9 dahil may session tayo sa hapon. But there's already a announcement that November 10, whole day tayo. That's an amendment to our rules and we did not consult each other or meet whether or not may session o wala on November 10. No problems din sa November 11 dahil meron pong Session in the afternoon and so forth and so on. So, I just like to, I will not question it at this point and we will probably consult each other but I'm just saying, let's not break our own rules because when we change the schedule of the session, kailangan ng consultation. Number two, again, I just like to reiterate, I am still not convinced that unahin natin yung impeachment sa budget. I was looking at the budget schedule of 2022 until 2025 for the 2026 budget. If we start on the 23rd, mga one month yung delay natin or three weeks yung delay natin. Given the Super El Nino, given the financial challenges of the world and the volatility of oil prices, the Israeli-US-Iran war. If we're going to start discussing the budget on the 23rd or after that, that may really take its toll on us and we won't feel that until next year. So maybe I can just lay this at your feet and take it under advisement and the Senate President and the Presiding Officer can discuss it with the Majority Leader.

We shall refer the matter with the Senate President and the Majority Leader, Your Honor, with respect to the calendar. I only make the most of the days assigned or given to me as presiding officer. Yes, before we call it a day and the chair makes concluding remarks, Atty. Sheila, maybe recognize the Hon. Luistro first.

First of all, Your Honor, we wish to put on record that while it is clear under the rules that the parties cannot raise a motion for reconsideration, The defense was given ample time by the Honorable Impeachment Court to seemingly argue already on their position against the ruling just read by the Honorable Presiding Officer. That is just for the record, Your Honor. Just to set the record straight, relative to the alternate presentation of article, we wish to put on record that we conform to that proposal or suggestion of the Honorable Senator Judge Bam Aquino and it was the defense who did not agree to the alternate presentation of article. That alternate presentation of article should have resolved the dilemma

3.

We express our complete submission and conformity to the fact that there is no adjudicative purpose anymore for the defense to present their evidence considering that the impeachment court has ruled already in favor of the withdrawal of Article 1, Article 3, and Article 4, Your Honor, retaining only Article 2, Unexplained Wealth. Gusto ko po ngayong itanong para saan ang pagprepresenta ng ebidensya sa harap ng hukumang ito kung iniurong na itong sakdal na naaayon sa grave threat, sa confidential fund, at ganun din dito sa bribery, Your Honor. We are consistent. To our position that we are considering the best interest of the public, of the impeachment court, and also the defense, Your Honor. And with respect to the reconsideration of the ruling of the honorable impeachment court on the abandonment of Rule 18, we are completely submitting to the sound judgment and prerogative of the honorable impeachment court. Finally, Your Honor, On the use of persecution, we take offense to that. It is totally unfair on the part of the volunteer lawyers who are leaving their private practice just to be here, support the public prosecutors. It is totally unfair for all the people helping the prosecution team exhibit their dedication and hard work. In preparing and presenting evidence before the impeachment court. As a matter of fact, Your Honor, it has been the observation of the prosecution that while the impeachment court is giving a very wide latitude to the defense, they seem to forget already the quorum and courtesy which must be extended not only to the prosecution but to the honorable impeachment court most especially. In this light, Your Honor, we hope That the impeachment court will remind the defense that while we are adverse parties, we are bound to extend the necessary decorum and courtesy in this impeachment court. Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you, Honorable Luistro.

And, Your Honor, please, I forgot. I move to strike persecution which was used three times by the defense from the transcript of records of the Honorable Impeachment Court.

Court will rule on the matter after we hear from Atty. Sheila and after she makes her manifestation before the Court makes its final orders before we adjourn. Atty. Sheila, before the Court rules on the motion of Oralistro.

Thank you, Your Honor. We actually will no longer dignify whatever it is that was mentioned or stated by The lead prosecutor. I think everyone has already seen and would know what's going on. But let me just say that I think it's also basic under the rules of evidence that an evidence may be admissible for one purpose. But maybe inadmissible for one purpose. And so what does that mean? It means that the appreciation of a piece of evidence actually depends on the offer. That is all what I'm going to say in respect of the complete party autonomy of both the prosecution and the defense to secure. and do what is necessary for their respective cases.

But on another note, Your Honor, we, of course, appreciate the openness to discussion of this honorable court with respect to the concern that we had laid out on the abandonment of Rule 18. But I will ask that this court recognize our spokesperson, Attorney Michael Poa,

As he actually is the one who on a daily basis is on the ground addressing the concerns and handling the press briefings with respect to the proceedings in this case. and he is in the best position to articulate our concern or our position on why we raised that concern with respect to the Rule 18 portion of the extended ruling of this Court, Your Honor. It's just going to be brief, Your Honor. I'm sure Atty. Poa will be able to state our position in a brief manner.

Actually, Atty. Sheila, with your respect, Atty. Mike, As Senator Judge Pia said, we're not rushing you to make a decision really.

You have

time. Let us know as soon as you know. Let the Clerk of Court know as soon as you know through Attorney Mike or any of your lawyers. And given the authority given by the Court through the motion of Senator Judge Pangilinan, the Presiding Officer can act on it during the break, during the recess, even if the Court is not in session.

Yes, Your Honor. But may we just also clarify for the record the status of Rule 18 is still in effect at this point or is this as per the Senate rules?

We have not yet acted on the motion for reconsideration. Procedurally, my problem is there is a ruling. The motion for reconsideration was not yet acted upon given that we will await you to get back with your client first. And as early as tomorrow, Attorney Sheila, if you can get back to us or within the week, we will act on the motion for reconsideration of Senator Judge Pangalina accordingly. Yes, Senator Judge Pia.

Mr. Presiding Officer, I am confused.

Is

His Honor saying that

because

His Honor made a ruling which is an abandonment of Rule 18

The defense gets back to us whether it's tonight, midnight, 6 a.m., noon time tomorrow. Rule 18 is considered abandoned between now and that time?

In relation to the withdrawn article, Senator Judge Pia, yes. The reason is simple, Senator Judge Pia. The last thing I want for anyone to say when they leave this courtroom is hindi na nga pinayagan sumagot sa loob ng hukuman, hindi pa pinayagan sumagot sa labas. Then I'd rather have that the rule allow them to speak rather than not allow them to speak.

Let that

be the position at rest than the opposite.

Thank you for that clarification. That does not sit well with me but I leave it to defense to argue their case. I'm not going to argue for them. My point, the point I'm raising solely is it doesn't seem logical. If they decide that they want to use this forum and they may come up with an argument that makes sense to us but then nag-free for all nga sa labas, then what was the point? So, until they make that manifestation, I think the least that we can do is afford them that time, whether it is, yun nga, hanggang midnight, hanggang alas otso ng umaga bukas, to make that decision, kasi like you said, it is for their benefit, then why don't you create an environment that they can use this benefit that you're giving to them? Yun lang naman po ang concern ko, but I will let them argue the case, and I'm just saying that if you want to give them something, give them something that they can genuinely work with. Thank you.

Senator Judge Pia, we did not give the opposing counsel a similar privilege. Actually, only gave them that privilege because as I said, that suspension was designed to afford them an opportunity to ventilate their case given the limitations, aside from the fact that we're going on a recess, given the limitations imposed by the effect of the withdrawal. So if they want

The

re-imposition of Rule 18 on the withdrawn articles, then hopefully, as you said, tonight, tomorrow morning, they can do so at their best.

But I don't understand why there has to be that gap of time that in the meantime, it's a free-for-all. If you want to give them time, then status ko dapat yun, whether nga two hours pa nga lang, tatlong oras, apat na oras, otherwise... Parang ang labo-labo naman po natin. Anyway, I said my piece, Mr. Presiding Officer. I normally see the logic in the ruling, but sorry to say, I don't see the logic in that ruling right now. Thank you.

The remarks of the lady are noted.

Anything else, Atty. Sheila?

Yes, Your Honor. Will Atty. Mike Poa?

Yes, of course.

Thank you.

Again, without this being the position of the respondent yet. Atty. Mike will be airing the reasons behind the concern.

Yes, Your Honor. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor, for giving me this opportunity. Of course, Your Honor.

Your Honor, please, if I may interrupt. We have a pending motion to strike.

We will act on it before we adjourn, I assure you, Atty. Sheila.

Thank you.

Atty. The Honorable Istro.

Yes, Your Honor. So, first and foremost, actually, I wanted to just clarify what the status is given the order, which was already clarified. Secondly, we just wanted the court to know that the difficulty we're facing with this, well, lifting of Rule 18 as regards those articles is, for example, for grave threat, we have a gag order from the RTC, Your Honor, trying that case on speaking on it. So, in a way, makakapagsalita po yung prosecution. Pero kami, hindi kami makapagsalita. Secondly, Your Honor, as you know, I've practiced restraint even when I was on the witness stand here, when senators would ask me questions. And of course, as counsel, gusto ko nang sagutin. Pero hindi ko masagot ng mga panahon na iyon, thinking that we will be able to present controverting evidence, not from our lips, but from the lips of witnesses, which we will not, as Senator Alan Peter Cayetano rightfully said earlier, that which we will not be able to subpoena or call into our press conferences. I think that's really the problem. But again, I just wanted to state that for the record, just to let you know the difficulties. That we might face because of that ruling. However, we will confer with our client as advised by the court. And we hope to at least let you know what the client says within 28 to 48 hours.

Hindi naman kailangan one for all, all for nothing, Atty. Mike. You can say, given the handicap you have with grave threats, then keep Rule 18 on grave threats, given the unique circumstance of that. Doesn't have to be one rule fits all.

Okay.

So, you let us know. Sorry, we were not able to factor in the fact that there is that pending case that is covered also by the subjudice rule.

Thank you, Your Honor. And we will provide you with a copy of the order of the court as well.

No need. Court can take judicial notice of that. And also, we are aware of dependency of that case that has been given due course.

Thank you, Your Honor. So, just for final clarification.

Yes, please.

As we leave the courtroom today, we can talk about articles. Well, not for us. We can't talk about Article 4, but Article 1 and Article 3. 1 and Article 3. And, of course, that will be afforded to prosecution as well until we are able to...

Until you say otherwise, after which the motion for reconsideration of Senator Judge Pangilin will come into operation as it will be recorded by the Clerk and a reconsideration of that rule shall be made either in whole or in part.

That's clear. Thank you, Your Honor.

So that it will be clear.

Thank you, Your Honor. That is all for me.

If there is nothing else, in relation to the motion to strike of the Honorable Luistro, given that persecution was indeed mentioned, I had it checked in the answer of the respondent, let it remain because per se it is not against the prosecution but merely descriptive from the point of view of the respondent what they think. or what their view is in regard to the complaint filed against their client. The motion is denied. Given that we will be on recess for 26 days, allow the Court to make brief remarks before we adjourn. The Court would like to thank the staff headed by the Clerk of Court for 39 grueling and long days for their hard work and their patience. The Court would also like to thank the parties assisting counsels

long as the staff behind them. For their effort in the last 39 days. And in spite of the fact that sometimes some may be short of it, the court would like to thank everyone for their patience and tolerance of one another.

And the court finally would like to thank the senator judges for their attendance and their patience and confidence in the presiding officer and in the court and the clerk of court as well. Sa lahat, humihingi ng presiding officer, sa ngalan ng lahat ng senator judges, ng clerk of court, ng paumanhin. Kung ano man ang mga pagkukulang namin, kung ano man ang hindi namin nakita, kung ano man ang hindi namin nagawa sa loob ng 35 araw ng paglilitis, sisikapin po namin na pagibayuhin pa at pagandahin pa ang aming trabaho para tiyakin ang mga susunod na araw ng paglilitis matapos natin mag-resume sa November 9. ay mas maayos kumpara sa nagdaang 30 siyam na araw. There being no further matters to discuss, by the way, we will distribute the schedule to the parties and the councils. It's here already. The TSN, Atty. Sheila, will be given to you within the afternoon but mark draft because it has to be checked against delivery because I did not read it. Read the entirety because it was a big draft that I had to customize depending on what will happen. So it has to be checked against delivery. That's why it will be placed draft.

Understood, Your Honor.

Thank you. Attorney, Senator Judge Villa.

Mr. Presiding Officer, on behalf of our colleagues, we'd also like to thank His Honor for his patience. Unlike us, we're able to go on prolonged bathroom breaks and multiple snack breaks. His Honor has sat there. I hope hindi kayo magkasakit sa bato. and also for his patience because as a senator who has started my career in the Senate at the age of 38, I have had presiding officer na sinisimangutang kami pag meron pang itatanong.

Parang yun, kayo ho hindi, nakangiti pa rin kayo. So nararamdaman naman namin po yun kahit na hindi ho kami, well at least ako, I don't always agree with you. But thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you as well with much appreciation. There being no other further matters to take up, trial is hereby adjourned until November 9 at 10 in the morning.