July 20, 2026

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

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 Sarah Zimmermann Duterte.

The Impeachment trial of Vice President Sarah Zimmermann Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator Judge Risa Ontiveros.

Palaayain niyo kami sa pagmamayabang, prejudice, at lahat ng klaseng impluensya na maaaring pagpalabo sa aming paghuhusga. Naway manaigang katotohanan, katarungan, at ang kabutihang panlahat sa bawat desisyong aming gagawin. Naway ang inyong Espiritu ay gumabay sa amin na maglingkod ng may integridad, katapatan,

Clerk of Court will now call the roll.

Call of members. The Honorable Senator-Judge Aquino; Senator-Judge Cayetano, Alan; Senator-Judge Cayetano, Pia; Senator-Judge Dela Rosa; Senator-Judge Ejercito; Senator-Judge Estrada; Senator-Judge Go; Senator-Judge Hontiveros; Senator-Judge Lacson; Senator-Judge Lapid; Senator-Judge Legarda; Senator-Judge Marcoleta; Senator-Judge Marcos; Senator-Judge Padilla; Senator-Judge Pangilinan; Senator-Judge Sotto III; Senator-Judge Tulfo, Erwin; Senator-Judge Tulfo, Raffy; Senator-Judge Villanueva; Senator-Judge Villar, Camille; Senator-Judge Villar, Mark; Senator-Judge Zubiri; the Presiding Officer; Senator-Judge Escudero.

Senate President Gatchalian With

20 Senators present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials The Chair now recognizes the newly elected Presiding Officer to preside over the proceedings of the Impeachment Court.

Thank you, Mr. Senate President. Before recognizing Senator Judge Padilla, Chair would first like to dispense with the Journal. If there are no objections, we dispense with the reading of the Journal of July 15, 2026 of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and shall consider the same as approved.

The Clerk of Court will please call the

matter before the Impeachment Court. Case number 004-2026 in the matter of Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte. Appearances for the parties.

Appearances for the prosecution.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Same appearance for the prosecution. We are ready, Your Honor.

Appearances for the respondent. Good afternoon, Your Honors. Same appearance for the respondent accused. Thank you, Your Honor. Noted. Senator Judge Padilla, sir, what is your pleasure?

Maraming salamat po sa ating tagapamahalang hukum at sa ating pung ginuong pangulo. Nais ko lamang pong basahin ng napakaigsing manifestation po. The gentleman may proceed with his manifestation. Maraming salamat po. Ahudu billahi minash shaitanir rajim bismillahir rahmanir rahim. Alhamdulillah rabbil alamin.

Aming mga kasama, ako po humihingi ng paumanhin sapagkat Ito pong nakaraang linggo, lumabas po sa mga balita na may aligasyon na ako daw po ay hindi sumusunod sa batas. Ito po ay nakalulungkot para sa isang senador, sa isang senator-judge ang masabihan na hindi sumusunod sa batas.

MAHAL NA SAKSI DITO, pinaalala po natin sa kanya na harapin ang batas. Noong nakaraang linggo ang ating pong kaibigan na ombudsman, ang sinabi po ng mahal na ombudsman na ako daw po ay hindi sumunod sa kanilang pasabi na mag-file ng aking counter affidavit. Nakakalungkot po ito sapagkat hindi po ito totoo.

Inaaming ko po sa inyo, kung ICC lang, hindi po talaga ako susunod.

Hindi ako magpapasakop sa ICC. Pero dahil ginagalang ko po ang ombudsman, dahil siya po ay aking kaibigan, na itinuturing, dahil nagkaroon na po kami ng napakahabang kwentuhan sa aking opisina nung siya po ay kalihim ng justisya, nag-file po kami. Eto po hawak ko po ang original. Because of me, the original is important.

This is the original. I put it here. I filed it.

I am sad that even the media is involved in this kind of propaganda.

That a senator does not obey the law. A senator-judge. Here, I can give you

a copy, my dear colleagues, to prove

Senators Erwin Tulfo, Sen. Judge Alan Quetano, thereafter Sen. Judge Tito Soto are recognized. What is your pleasure, Sen. Judge Erwin Tulfo?

Ladies and gentlemen, this impeachment court was established to try the Vice President of the Republic.

Ika nga, frustrations. Pero gusto ko lang po sana ipaalala sa ating presiding officer, sa ating pong senate president, at matanong ano po ba ang ating ginagamit na rules ngayon? Puwede po ba yung mga problema po labas sa impeachment court na ito o labas sa kaso ng vice president ay dadalhin natin dito? Di po ba ang korte na ito na itatag For the sake of the Vice President and the Vice President only.

Evidence, testimonies, statements, only about the impeachment of the Vice President. Because in the past few days, Mr. Presiding Officer, Senate President, colleagues, I have noticed that the time of the impeachment court is being used to

defend the past days

Giorgio Ramos In the press conference, the Senate media is there.

Any time, they are in the Senate briefing room, press briefing room. You can also explain on

Facebook or YouTube. Let's not use the time of

the impeachment court to explain or defend ourselves since last week. Because the time we waste here to defend ourselves Defend what we believe or what have you is an injustice to the Vice President. Yung oras po na ito dapat ilaan natin sa pakikinig sa depensa ng Vice Presidente, sa mga akusasyon laban sa Vice Presidente, hindi po pagdidepensa sa mga sarili natin kung tayo inaakusahan ng kung anong mga ahensya. If we have cases, investigations, this is not the right forum, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. President, Senate President. This is not the right place. This court was established, was created, the impeachment court, for the Vice President and Vice President only. This should be her time. This should be her forum. Not our forum here.

And this is not also the time, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer, na hanapin yung mga kasama nating nawawala, nakakulong, dapat po doon sa Senado natin, sa session natin, and not here in this court, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. Senate President. Kaya pakiusap ko lamang po, sana. Ah, sa ating ah, mahal na presiding officer and senate president. Let us follow the rules. May rules ho tayo. Kung hindi naman ho patungkol sa vice president na sasabihin natin, hindi naman po patungkol sa ikang depensa o prosekusyon ng vice presidente natin, then, wag na ho natin payagan na magsalita pa po dito because nasasayang. Because every minute, every hour that we waste Away from the defense or from the prosecution of the case of the vice president, it is injustice. It is called injustice to the vice president, to her family, yung anguish, yung kanyang sama ng loob, yung oras na nakabimbin ang kaso na ito. Let us do this impeachment trial as quickly as possible. If we have to clear the vice president, then let's clear her. If we have to prosecute, then prosecute her with the evidence kung meron. Not waste our time kung ano-anong sinasabi natin dito to protect ourselves, to defend ourselves. This is not the right forum, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. Senate

President. This is not the right forum for us to defend ourselves. Bring it somewhere else, bring it to the press, bring it to the social media, but not here. Thank you, Mr. President.

The remarks of the gentleman are noted. Earlier, Senator Judge Allen asked to be recognized. Are you yielding in favor of Senator Judge Padilla? And thereafter, Senator Judge Soto, thereafter, Senator Judge Padilla before the chair makes a ruling on the matter. Yes, Senator Judge Allen Cayetano is recognized. You may proceed, sir.

I'm happy I finally heard Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo is concerned about the justice or injustice to Vice President Sara. That's good news.

Regarding the waste of time here, sabi ni Sen. Joker Arroyo, it is useless to argue a legal point with a non-lawyer.

When Sen. Mark Coleta brought that up here, nagkaroon ng commotion. Sen. Miriam stood up here many times and said, kaya ka nga nagpo-four years na law school at nagbabar. So let me give my own interpretation. The impeachment court is formed with lawyers and non-lawyers. And we interact, and it's for everyone, and we're equal. But if there's an engineer here, or a doctor, and they talk about medical principles, I have to either study and argue on medical principles. Hindi ko pwedeng sabihin, hindi ganito lang yan, logic lang yan, etc. Diba? So, our legal principle today is simple, integrity of the court. So, allow me to mention that to the people and help educate my colleague here. The integrity of the court and the justices or judges is always relevant. So, if the Supreme Court or COMELEC, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandigan Bayang is being heard, and the judges are being threatened, you give them time. So we cannot take the impeachment out of context. May nangyayaring flood control scandal, may nangyayaring gulo sa team unity na hindi na united ngayon. We consider Senator Marcoleta and Senator Jingoy political prisoners weaponized yung Blue Ribbon Committee at weaponized yung ano. So Mr. President, hindi tama na sabihin na I wasn't after we brought up the problem with NBI. They doubled down. Naggumawa pa ng task force. I mentioned two colleagues sa SAL-N. I didn't accuse them. Sabi ko lang, just like Vice President Sara, just because tumaas ang SAL-N, can we already ask for the BIR, for the AMLA and the bank accounts? So sabi ko, yan ang ididiscuss namin sa Monday. Nag-react na, nag-accused. I did not. Take up your accusations here today.

Secretary Vince Dizon, tatlong bes na nag-verify sa tagig, sinabi na tatlong beses na walang ghost, ngayon i-verify ulit. I wasn't going to bring that up, but then i-question ninyo si Senator Padilla. It was all over the news na hindi niya inintindi or he snubbed the ombudsman. I was going to stand up before Senator Erwin stood up just to say, may registered mail. So nung una pa lang, five minutes si Senator Tulfo, so I'll take the five minutes also if you don't mind.

The gentleman may proceed and kindly be mindful of the time. Yes, I will now. So

I'm just saying, Senator Padilla just stood up to say, sumusunod siya sa batas, tapos. Kaya humaba to, dahil nga hindi importante ata dito yung integrity ng judge. Lastly, kaya sinabi kong it's useless to argue a legal point, ilang beses ko

na narinig dito. It's our job to clear or prosecute the vice president. Hindi po. It's our job to try and to decide. It's the prosecution's job to try to prosecute and it's the defense's job to convince us na wala. Our job is to try and to decide. And when you decide, you acquit or you convict. Why is that important? These are legal terms. Hindi pwede yung nanonood na Law student ngayon sasabihin, trabaho pala ng judge to clear or to prosecute. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. Senate President.

Thank you, Senator Judge Alan Cayetano. His remarks are noted. Senator Judge Soto thereafter, Senator Judge Padilla thereafter, the Presiding Officer shall make a ruling. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes. Thank

you, Mr. President, the Presiding Officer. I do not have four years of law. But I have 29 years of lawmaking, and I move that the manifestations that we have heard be referred to the Senate proper.

We will act on it at the proper time, Your Honor. Thank you. Your remarks are noted. Senator Judge Padilla is recognized. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes.

The impeachment of our second president. What it represents is our rights as Filipinos, and first and foremost, the due process. This is what it means. Because you are the second president, you are the president, you are the senator-judge, you are the farmer, you are the fisherman, there must be a due process. What happened to me, That I was immediately judged as a senator-judge for the integrity of our court and of the senator-judges. So I hope we will not

forget that every Filipino has rights, especially when it comes to you, me, and me being a senator-judge at this time.

That's all.

I'm very sorry. Due process, mga mahal kong kaibigan, mga mahal kong kababayan, maging prosecution, maging defense, sa ating lahat, huwag nating kalimutan, pantay-pantay tayo sa batas. Maraming salamat po.

Senator Judge Pagninan, what is your pleasure, sir?

Just a very quick manifestation, Mr. Presiding Officer. Earlier, Senator, former Senate President Sotom,

Rene Cayetano made a manifestation regarding a case that was supposedly being prepared a criminal case to be filed against him it was raised in the impeachment court but ultimately the impeachment court agreed that the manifestation

I think the presiding officer ruled that we will take it up later on, but if Senator Judge Pangilinan will insist, then I have to object on a point of order. Rule 6 says, the last part, the provisions of the rules of the Senate and the revised rules of court shall apply suppletory whenever applicable. And in the rules of the Senate, whenever

The senator feels threatened or anything happens, whether pinatayan ng aircon, whether may nakatutok na barel or sinarhan ng pinto, he can rise on a point of personal and collective privilege. We didn't do that para umikli. Now, if we're going to argue today rather than ask them about due process, with a simple manifestation from Senator Padilla,

Lorenzo

C.

Thank you, Mr. President. Rule 6 of our impeachment rules, Mr. President, which was quoted by Senator Cayetano as being suppletory, refers to evidence, rulings on evidence. In the impeachment trial, it does not refer to privileged speeches. Therefore, the suppletory nature of the Rules of Court, as well as the Senate rules, refers to matters pertaining to evidence and no other, Mr. President. But in the spirit of liberality, we will allow that. That's precisely why we did not object when he spoke last week. But let us not abuse the liberality of this Court, Mr. President.

With the permission of Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo, the Chair will make a ruling, because I believe it is also his position not to prolong this matter in discussing collateral matters not pertaining to the articles of impeachment that we are hearing and trying before the impeachment court. The chair rules that the manifestation of Senator Judge Padilla shall remain in the records. We cite as a precedent to the precedent mentioned by Senator Judge Pangilinan. Where the speech of former senator, the late former senator Rene Cayetano was not expunged from the record but referred to the Senate impeachment, Senate rather, as a legislative body where it may be taken up. I ask the indulgence of the parties to this case. Wala po kasi kaming session. Ito lang po ang pagkakataong nakakapagsalita at nakikita-kita kami habang recess kami. Pero umaasa ako. Within hearing distance of my colleagues, na kapag ka nag-resume na po ang Senado sa susunod na linggo matapos ang Sona ng Pangulo, may pagkakataon na po ang bawat miyembro ng Senado bilang Senador,

hindi

bilang

Senator-Judge, na may labas.

Yung mga hinahing o anumang nais nilang sabihin kaugnay sa anumang nagaganap o nangyayaring hindi tama sa kanila o ginagawa laban sa kanila.

And that, I think, is the proper forum for us to Ventilate, discuss, look into, and if necessary, investigate the allegations and their accusations against senator-judges in their capacity likewise as senators. So ordered.

What

is the pleasure of senator-judge? I will

just manifest. I correct myself. It was stamped, not registered mail. And since I agree with the ruling, I will not anymore argue the other rule that correlates with Rule 6. Thank you. Thank

you, sir. Noted that

it was stamped.

The Senate President thereafter, Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Hopefully, we can move on after the manifestations to the gentlemen.

Let me appreciate and thank the ruling of the Presiding Officer to refer the manifestations as well as the comments of our colleagues to the Senate acting as a legislative body. Eight days na lang po ay magkoconvene na ang Senate. At doon rin po natin pag-uusapan itong mga mahalagang bagay na pag-uusapan po natin ngayon. At kanina po ay narinig ko po yung komento ng ating kasamaan si Sen. Romine Padilla. At ito po yung mga bagay na dapat rin po natin talakayin pag nagbukas na po ang Senado in one week's time. So with the indulgence of our colleagues,

Importante yung oras ng trial sa mga darating ng panahon. Nasabi ko nga nung mga ilang araw na mahaba pa yung ating dadaanan. Ito ay seventh day pa lang out of the 102 days na dadaanan natin. Kaya bawat oras, bawat segundo ay napakalaga. At nagpapasalamat po ako sa ating mga kasamahan dahil po sa kanilang masusing

Pag-participate ho dito sa ating impeachment, pero dadating rin po tayo doon sa pagtatalakay nitong mahalagang issue pagbukas po ng Senado. Maraming salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo, briefly, sir, so that we can proceed to the matter on hand.

Very quickly, Mr. Presiding Officer, can we start now?

Sir? I was about to, sir.

Thank you, sir. We wasted 26 minutes for nothing. Thank you po.

Proceeding now to the matter on hand.

The Presiding Officer already made the ruling, referring it to the Senate as a legislative body, Senator Judge Soto, without expunging it from the records. Let it remain there. We will now proceed to the matter at hand. We now resume consideration of the Prosecution's requests for the issuance of Sabinas D. Tecum No. 1. For the banks and the anti-money laundering council on the other, on one hand, and to the Bureau of Internal Revenue on the other. And as previously agreed and discussed, not only in caucus but also directly by the presiding officer with some members, chair will now recognize, as I understand, Senator Judge... Ikaw

ba una? Senator Judge Allan or Senator Judge Villanueva? Or Senator Judge Villa? Who would want... No one's raising their hand, that's why I don't know... Senator Judge Villanueva is recognized.

You may proceed, sir. Thereafter, Senator Judge Pia Cayetano. Thereafter, Senator Judge Alan Cayetano. You may proceed, sir.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. As much as I am more than willing to give way to our dear colleagues. But, Mr. President, before I make a... I inquire... and pose some questions to the prosecution and the defense. May I also raise something, Mr. Presiding Officer? Gusto ko lang pong malinawan tungkol po dun sa procedural aspect ginawang Pangulo dun sa motion na ito. Kasi sa regular courts, hindi naman po unusual na ang isa pong motion ay i-grant in part At i-deny in part, depende po sa legal and factual basis ng bawat relief na hinihingi po, ginong Pangulo. So, pwede ko po bang malinawan lang, Mr. Presiding Officer, tama po bang sabihin ganon din yung kapangyarihan ng ating impeachment court? Maaari po ba na suriin ang bawat hinihingi sabina ng magkahiwalay? At magpasya po batay sa legal at factual basis ng bawat isa sa halip po na tratuhin ang buong motion bilang isang all or nothing proposition.

Tatratuhin ang hukumang ito bilang nag-iisang motion ang tag-isang motion na inihain ng Prosecution. They only file two motions, Sen. Judge Villanueva, and the Court will act on these two motions separately. Regardless of the number of issues or sub-issues underneath each motion, the reason is simple. Because the court should be a passive body. By amending the motion into several parts and voting on it separately, we are essentially acting as if we were one of the parties. In voting for or against the grant of the motion, we should take into consideration all of the factors that may be raised for or against it. And it may be cited by the Senator Judge in explaining his vote or voting for or against it. Pangalawa po, bilang mga hukom, hindi tayo pwedeng masyadong aktibong makilahok sa paraan ng mga musyon which is essentially a relief being asked for by a party sa pamamagitan ng paghahati ng mga musyon na iyon para pagbotohan ng hiwa-hiwalay. And there is precedent insofar

as this position taken by the Presiding Officer is concerned.

In the impeachment of the former Chief Justice, late former Chief Justice Corona, where then-Senate President, Presiding Officer Enrile ruled that the ruling of the Chair on motions are indivisible and may only be appealed en toto and not in part.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. And it's clear to me now, despite the fact, Mr. Presiding Officer, your honors, that If there would come a time na, for example, sa isang sabbina, may sinasabbina na sa asawa o sa korporasyon o korporasyon na hindi naman relevant at material doon sa kaso, yun lang po ginagong Pangulo ang ating nagiging reservation tungkol po dito. Ngunit naging malinaw po sa akin na magiging isang decision lamang doon sa dalawang motion.

I think it's important that we distinguish between two separate procedural questions. Una, kung dapat po bang i-produce ang hinihinging records. At pangalawa, Kung ang mga records na iyon ay magiging admissible at kung anong evidentiary weight ang dapat ibigay sa kanila. So, let me start by asking our lead prosecutor, to our dear congressman, would it be correct, sir, to say that the issuance of a subpoena merely compels The production of records and does not by itself amount to a ruling that those records are admissible, relevant, or entitled to evidentiary weight, Your Honor.

Before the member of the panel for prosecutors answers, he's not the lead prosecutor. The question is addressed to the honorable representative, Chael Jocna, who is a member. who is part of the panel of prosecutors who will be answering your questions. And for the record too, on the part of the respondent, I think it's Atty. Powa who

will

be answering. That's correct. So that we don't need to identify each one each time anymore for the record. The Honorable Jocno may respond to the question of Senator Judge Villanueva. You may proceed sir when you're ready. Thank you, Your

Honor. Good afternoon to all the members of this honorable court. Naisagot na po ata yan na ni dating presiding Judge Juan Ponce Enrile. Doon po sa corona impeachment case and if I may quote just a brief portion from what he said, I would like to explain that the resolution of this court was simply to authorize the issuance of a

subpoena and whether those evidence subpoenaed are admissible evidence given the fact that they apparently appeared in violation of existing laws is a question that must be resolved in due course. So ang ibig po sabihin, ang hiling lang po ng prosecution ay May labas ang ebidensya, pero wala pa po tayo dun sa punto kung tatanggapin ba nitong hukuman ang evidence na iyon, kung siya po ay admissible o hindi.

Maraming salamat po sa inyong tugon, Representative Diokno. Kaya po, nilahag ko po yan, nang sa ganoon, maitanong po natin ang defense panel, if that distinction is correct, would the defense still maintain That the mere issuance of a subpoena is by itself already prejudicial to the respondent even before the court has ruled on admissibility or weight.

Yes, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Honorable Sen. Judges. Yes, while we agree with the position of the prosecution na hindi pa naman pinag-uusapan ang admissibility sa puntong ito, what we are questioning is really yung subpoena mismo po. Dahil sa atin, sa ating pananaw, ang isang subpoena, at hindi lang sa ating pananaw but even under jurisprudence, meron pong requirements bago tayo makapag-issue ng subpoena para maging valid yung subpoena na yun. At yun po yung napag-usapan natin noong nakarang linggo na definiteness and relevance. Ngayon, yung twin requirements na yun para po sa pananaw ng depensa ay lacking in this case. And that is why we maintain our position as regards opposing itong request ng prosecution sa pag-issue ng subpoena.

Well, at least malinaw po: the issuance of a subpoena is not necessarily the opening of records; una. Pangalawa, to be presented in court. At pangatlo, to be admitted as evidence by this court. Before I go to the requirements, let me ask the panel of prosecutors, Representative Diokno. Doon po sa pananaw ng depensa on the alleged fishing expedition, just for the guidance of senator-judges, this representation would like to clarify one procedural matter. We understand the concern raised by the defense that the subpoena may be overly broad. At the same time, we

also recognize that the court has a duty naman to determine whether the records being sought are sufficiently relevant and material to the issues before us. So, Representative Jock, maaari po ba ninyong ipaliwanag kung paano ninyo tiniyak na ang hinihingi ng mga records ay hindi po simpleng paghahanap lamang ng posibleng ebidensya o tinatawag na phishing expedition Ito po ay mga particular na dokumento na sa tingin po ninyo ay meron pong malinaw at direct ang kaugnayan dito po sa mga articles of impeachment.

Thank you, Your Honor. Ang hinihiling po namin sa mga sabbina ay kaugnay sa Article 2, which involves charges of unexplained wealth. Kung titignan po natin yung mga jurisprudence pagdating sa unexplained wealth, klarong-klaro po Na sinabi mismo ng Korte Suprema, na kailangan makita yung buong larawan, hindi lamang po ng mga SAL-N na finile ng isang lingkod bayan, kung hindi lahat ng kanyang kinita, both what we would call lawful and if there is, illegitimate income. Ang SAL-N po kasi ay parang snapshot lang po yan, year-end kung ano yung mga assets, liabilities, and net worth ng isang government official. Ang ITR din po ay parang short video lang po yan ng mga transaksyon ng isang taxpayer sa kabuuan ng taon na iyon. Makikita lang po natin yung buong larawan pag nailabas natin ang mga bank records. Kasi doon po, yung day-to-day na lumabas at pumasok sa isang account ay mabubuo po natin. And in fact, in the case of DOF RIPs versus Merensilia, Ito lang pong portion ang babasahin ko. Sabing ganun ng Supreme Court, The failure of the complainant to take into consideration Respondent Rafael's net worth from the time he entered government service and the failure to take into consideration all of his possible sources of income in relation to his real and personal properties do not support the conclusion that he has unexplained wealth. Considering that his true net worth was not determined, Ito po ay sabi ng Supreme Court, ombudsman, hindi niyo nagawa yung inyong trabaho. Kaya ayaw po namin tumulad sa nangyari kay ombudsman dito sa kasong ito. We want to see the entire picture. Kaya po namin hinihingi yung BIR records, pati yung mga bank records, and even the Anti-Money Laundering Council records. Para makita po natin yung buong story as far as both the assets liabilities and net worth are concerned and the lawful and if there is unlawful income acquired by the respondent.

Last question sa prosecution. Sir, binanggit po kanina nung defense panel yung requirements which should be relevant and

May we know what led the prosecution to conclude that the issuance of subpoena is the least intrusive and most appropriate means of obtaining the information sought? In other words, Your Honor, paano po ninyo masasabi na itong subpoena is not only relevant but also necessary and the proportionate under these circumstances.

Ang sabi nga po, ang tanging paraan para makuha ng hukumang ito ang mga kinakailangan po nating datos, impormasyon, at dokumento ay sa pamamagitan ng subpoena. At hindi naman po siya intrusive dahil, tulad ng nabanggit ko po kanina, hindi pa naman ito question of admissibility. Ang kailangan lang ay ma-produce sa korte yung mga dokumentong hinihingi. The issue of admissibility will come later and the defense will have sufficient opportunity to object and to oppose. Ngayon po, as far as the particular records that we are requesting are concerned, ito'y nakabatay nga sa nabanggit ko pong desisyon ng Supreme Court na pag tinitingnan natin ang issue ng unexplained wealth, hindi lang po pwedeng snapshot ang titignan natin. Kailangan mula sa unang araw ng paglingkod ng isang lingkod bayan,

We recognize that the law places a premium on protecting confidential information At the same time, we are also dealing with a request made in the course of a constitutional proceeding Before this impeachment court. At bilang mga senator judges, it's our constitutional duty to try and decide on impeachment cases. Mr. Defense Counsel, yung Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, binanggit niyo po ito last time, which prohibits the disclosure of confidential information. How should this apply? 2 records sought through a subpoena issued by the impeachment court because as I read your honors section 8-A it imposes confidentiality but it does not expressly create an absolute privilege against the subpoena there is a distinction between

An authorized disclosure and production pursuant to a lawful order of a constitutional body. So, again, my question, Your Honor, where exactly in Section 8A does it say that AMLC may refuse a lawful subpoena from this Court, Your Honor?

Thank you for that question, Your Honor. Unang-una, sagutin ko lang po yung pretense ng inyong tanong, no? Sabi niyo, this is a constitutional body, hindi po ba? And as we all know, there is an old legal maxim that the spring cannot rise over the source. Ibig sabihin po nun, while the impeachment court is a constitutional creation, it cannot go over and above the Constitution itself. And when we talk about the impeachment court under Article 11, we cannot read that in isolation. We have to also give due regard for all other provisions of the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights kung saan due process ay isang bagay na nakatatakpo doon at pinapakita doon ano bang ibig sabihin ng due process. Due process is kasama po sa kalakip ng due process ay ang bawat na nasasakdal ay meron ding

Wala po ni isang exception. It could have been easy, especially since this is a 2021 amendment. It could have been easy for Congress to have cited impeachment as an exception if it did actually wish to do so. But it did not, Your Honor. And it is our position that if we were to compel an issue of subpoena against these AMLOC records, we're actually compelling the officials to violate this very section of the law. And that is why we are saying na pagdating sa 8A, absolute po yan. It does not say that there is any exception if any court processes are actually issued to compel the production of these documents. Precisely because ang nasa loob po kasi ng mga records ng AMLOC are intelligence. And that's why it's confidential. And once AMLOC determines that They find out that certain transactions are subject to money laundering or should be actually filed in court. The end result is the complaint itself and not the raw data. And that is why, Your Honors, as to the raw data or the information that they receive, yan po ay strictly confidential under 8.

Thank you for that. Again, I would like to put on record that I was trying to look at that particular section, Section 8, and I don't see anything that says this court would not have any prerogative as to whether or not we can subpoena bank records. But let me move forward. Perhaps this could be my last question, Your Honor, Mr. Presiding Officer. The Constitution recognizes two equally important principles.

Confidentiality on one hand and the freedom of information which promotes transparency and public accountability on the other. So, Atty. Powa, gusto ko lang pong malinawan for the benefit of this representation and our dear colleagues here being senator-judges. May legal distinction po ba? Between disclosure of information to the general public and the limited production of records solely to this impeachment court in the exercise of its constitutional function. Because we understand that the principle of freedom of information is rooted in transparency and public accountability. Especially po when the If the conduct

of a public officer is under constitutional scrutiny, if confidentiality is the concern, would you agree, Atty. Powa, that this impeachment court can impose safeguards on the use and disclosure of the records? Kung maaari naman po na

Magpatupad ang impeachment court ng sapat po na safeguards upang mapanatili ang confidentiality ng mga records. Bakit po dapat maging hadlang ang confidentiality sa isang impeachment court upang suriin ang mga impormasyon na maaari nga pong may kinalaman sa mga isyong nararapat nitong resolvahin bilang isang impeachment court?

Para sa atin po, kung anuman pong hakbang ang pwede o hindi pwedeng gawin ng isang impeachment court tulad ng nasa harap natin na ngayon, it must be confined to the limits imposed by the Constitution and the laws. So kahit sabihin po natin, you know, we are not against transparency. I just want to make that clear, Your Honors. We are not against accountability. But again, as I've mentioned last year, I mean last week, rather, Hindi naman porkit po that we are all looking for accountability and transparency, ay isasantabi na lang po natin kung ano ang mga karapatan, hindi lang para sa impeachable officer, pero para kahit sinong Pilipino na nakasaad sa batas, including absolute confidentiality in terms of AMLAC reports, which we are pointing to. So para po sa atin, nakikita ko yung punto po ng ating hukom, na Papano kung mag-impose na lang tayo ng certain conditions? However, Your Honors, those certain conditions may be allowed for other records, pero pagdating sa AMLAC po, absolute po kasi yung prohibition. And if we were to amend or at least suspend the provision of 8 , then it is as if this honorable court is actually doing some sort of judicial legislation, no? Because we are technically suspending this law for a specific

Which means that we must work within the limits imposed by the Constitution, the laws, and the rules of the land. Salamat po.

po, Atty. Mr. Presiding Officer, just a few seconds. Just to put on record, ang Senado po ay nasa plenaryo na po iyong Proposed Bright Act natin na maraming sumuportang mga kasamahan natin. Ito kasama po dito yung amendments to AMLA to put in black and white the circumstances under Which bank records financial transactions may be lawfully accessed by competent authorities? Subject always, of course, Mr. President, to appropriate safeguards and due process. So, gusto ko lang pong banggitin that, indeed, confidentiality is an important legal protection pero hindi din po ito dapat maging dahilan naman para manatiling mailap po ang pananagutan. Ang mabuting batas ay Kayang pangalagaan ang privacy ng hindi po nasasakripisyo ang accountability. Our laws must be able to protect both, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer. Maraming salamat po, Ginong Pangulo. Maraming salamat po, our Councils. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Judge Villanueva. Your remarks and responses thereto are duly noted and entered into the records. Senator Judge Pia Cayetano is next, I believe. You may proceed, ma'am, when you're ready.

I'm ready to proceed, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I'd like to start this discussion with a question that hopefully will allow our kababayans who are watching, listening, to understand the situation. Of course, I pose it also to the parties. If the government had in mind that there's a business, and of course, a particular businessman or businesswoman who is violating a lot of laws pertaining to the Operation of their business, be it customs law, BIR, regulation.

Pwede ba silang basta nalang mag-request ng dokumento o mag-file ng kaso na requiring the businessman and the corporation to produce those documents? Pwede ba? So yun

ang pag-isipan natin, no? Kasi yun ang tanong eh. Similarly, ginagawa ko lang ng ibang analogy para maintindihan ang mga kababayan natin. So this is the essence, dear colleagues, parties, of the principle of due process. This is ingrained in our Constitution. Totoo po na may karapatan ang gobyerno at obligasyon ng gobyernong patakbuhin ng maayos ang gobyerno. But it is always with due respect to the rights of every individual Filipino. That is, the right to life, Liberty and property. So bago mo sagasaan yung right to life, liberty and property, siguraduhin mo lang na may basihan ka. Yun lang naman ang sabi. So of course, ako gusto ko talaga na maayos ang patakbo ng gobyerno para if somebody's life is also in danger, then government has to step up and prevent somebody's liberty kasi nga sinasagasaan niya yung life and liberty ng ibang tao. So it's a balance. I think we can all agree it's

a balance. So I want to go straight into a landmark case. And I will ask both parties for their legal opinions on it kasi it is a legal proceeding pero gawin niyo lang simple para hindi masyado complicated para sa mga nakikinig sa atin.

So in the landmark case of Stonehill v. Diokno, 1967 pa po ito, karamihan ng mga lawyers hindi pa pinapanganak, the importance of due process was highlighted and the Supreme Court discussed two points. General warrants are void. Sabi ng Supreme Court, A warrant must be issued on probable cause for one specific offense and must particularly describe the thing being seized. So kailangan particular ang description dun sa warrant. Warrants that leave it to the discretion of the officers serving them to decide what to seize or general warrants are outlawed by the Constitution because they place the sanctity of the home and privacy at the mercy of prosecutors. So sinabi dito na Kailangan specific. Take note, warrant ito ha. So pinanaman ang pinag-uusapan natin. Alam ko po yun. Pero I'm pointing it out kasi ang magiging tanong ko later on is kung relevant ito sa kaso. Okay? The other principle that was established in Stonehill v. Jocno was the exclusionary rule. Evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Ito po yung tinatawag na the fruit of the poison tree. Pag nakuha mo yung information doon sa

Bawal na paraan. Kung ano yung information mo, bawal ipakita yun. And this is where I need to get guidance from the presiding officer. If I'm allowed, I don't have to name names, to share the discussion that we had in COCUS, para lang mabanggit ko na ito yung mga provisions of law na napag-usapan. Am I allowed to do that? Would you like me to approach you? Please let me know. Because I will abide.

Basically, because ang nangyari is we had our own discussion and I want to mention the provisions of law that we discussed. I don't have to mention names.

The lady may proceed.

Okay, thank you. So, tungkol dito sa exclusionary rule, ulitin ko, fruits of the poison tree. Doon nga sa aming very open discussion, and I thank many of our colleagues who were very, I think we engaged in a fruitful discussion for some, not for all. I think yung iba talagang gustong makipag-debate, at di debate kasi gusto ko rin matuto, no? I think all of you will attest na I also wanted to learn from all of you kung anong perceptions niyo sa batas, kung ano din yung sinasabi ng mga abogado niyo. So doon sa fruits of the poison tree, sabi ko, Kung yung pinanggalingan ng mga dokumento e bawal, nakuni ng basta-basta, then paano mo gagamitin? And meron kasing observation na lumabas na kasi yung documents na yun sa house. So nakita na ng publiko sa house. So sabi ko, pero if I will look at, and this is where I will pose the question to all of you, medyo layered eh, so pasensya na sa medyo complicated. Yung isang concern ng defense na nabasa ko is that hindi nag-allege ng ultimate facts. Hindi klaro kung ano yung naging kasalanan at hindi na-identify ng maayos itong facts na to that lead to a conclusion of law. So wala daw yun. Later on, I will ask both parties again to also clarify that. But the point is kung walang basihan Yung paglabas ng ebidensya na yun, it is the fruit of the poison tree, then you cannot use it. So yun yung importanteng-importante dito kasi I'm sure nakita niyo na sa korte, kahit sabihin niyo pong sa mga legal drama, na na-throw out, the case is thrown out, because na-violate ang due process. So that's the discussion I want to have. I want to hear both, ha? Wala akong kinikilingan dito. I'm just explaining na yun yung argument ng defense, na walang due process, kulang, at why prosecution would you say na nasusunod yung due process? And before I give the floor to the parties, Yung sinabi kong kaso na Stonehill v. Diokno very interestingly involves the esteemed father of our colleague, Congressman-Prosecutor Chelle Diokno. In the case of Stonehill v. Diokno, the father of Congressman Diokno was the Secretary of Justice. And in this case, the government through the Secretary and other prosecutors suspected that Harry Stonehill and his associates and several corporations that they controlled were violating central bank laws, tariff and customs laws, internal revenue code, and the revised penal code. So nag-request sila ng issuance of search warrant. At ang gusto nilang tingnan is books of accounts, financial records.

Vouchers, Receipts, Ledgers, etc. and other documents showing all the business transactions.

Stonehill and the other petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court arguing that the search warrants were general warrants because they did not particularly describe the things to be seized. So, general papalayon, books of accounts, financial records, receipts, general papalayon, and the Supreme Court ruled that indeed, General warrants are void. Warrants must be based on probable cause. Nasabi ko na yun, ano? And then the case also adopted the exclusionary rule holding that evidence seized under an unconstitutional warrant is inadmissible. So, I now pose my questions.

Applicable po ba ang kaso na ito? Yield versus yoke, no? As far as the prosecution is concerned. And then also for defense, applicable. Take note, I've read most of the pleadings. Well, all of the pleadings. Mahahaba sila. I kinda know your answer. But sa dami, I like to hear it again. And I think, of course, karamihan ng kababayan natin did not read it. So explain natin sa kanila. Because this is a landmark case. Kung ikaw ay law student na magbabar, Ito yung mga kasong titingnan mo. So malay mo, matanong yan sa BAR. So nakatulong man lang tayo dun sa mga BAR students na maliwanagan sila. Baka mamaya trick question to. Is it applicable or not? That is my question. I will sit down and then I will come back for my next. Thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor. If I may be recognized?

The member of the panel of prosecutors may proceed to give his answer thereafter. The counsel for respondent may do so as well.

Iba po ang konteksto ng search warrant. Thank you very much.

Thank you very

much.

Thank you very much.

Person involved, pwedeng halongkatin yung lahat ng mga gamit niya doon sa kanyang opisina o sa kanyang bahay. Kaya po naglagay ng maraming limitasyon ang ating konstitusyon dahil maraming ng pang-aabuso, maraming ng mga halimbawa ng pang-aabuso na nangyari kahit noon pa. Iba po ang pinag-uusapan natin ngayon. Ang pinag-uusapan natin ngayon ay sub-pina. Hindi po ito licensed to enter an office or to search.

Therefore, the contexts are very different when we speak of a search warrant. I do agree there should be very specific limitations on how that warrant can be enforced, which basically provide that for a subpoena to be valid, it must be relevant and it must be definite. Ibig po sa relevance ay may kinalaman, na may kaugnayan yan sa mga kailangang patunayan na facts. At pagdating naman sa definiteness, klaro kung anong mga iba't ibang dokumento ang hinihingi. In our case, we respectfully submit, Your Honors, that we have met both the standards of relevance and materiality. The BIR records, the bank records, and the records of the Anti-Money Laundering Council are relevant to the facts in issue pertaining to the charges of unexplained wealth. Hindi po natin malalaman kung talagang merong unexplained wealth ang Vice President kung hindi natin mabubuksan yung kanyang mga bank records, kung hindi rin natin makikita at mailalatag ang anti-money laundering at BIR records po nila. And insofar as definiteness is concerned, we have specified the particular documents that we are requesting and we have included as well an explanation of why those are important. Kaya sa aming pananaw po ay we have satisfied the requirements for a subpoena duces tecum. Thank you.

Mr. Presiding Officer, before we recognize the defense, just a quick follow-up question.

Bigyan ko ng time na bulungan muna siya ng kasama. I'm sorry. Okay na kayo? No, it's okay.

Senator Judge Pia, would you like the Council for Respondents to answer?

Not yet, Mr. President. Ah, not yet. Okay. My request was if I'll just ask a follow-up question.

You may

proceed, ma'am.

Thank you. Thank you for that. I appreciate his honor's response. May I simply point out, and again, please give me your explanation. Tama ko yung pagkambanggit niyo na yung nature ng search warrant, very invasionary, di ba? Because it

It requires that pasukin yung bahay, halughugin yung gamit, pero hindi kaya invasive din yung paghalughug ng records. Is that not extremely parallel? I mean, is it not very similar in the sense that what is being questioned now are the very essence of somebody's savings, earnings? So, which we have to agree, I think there's no doubt that that is protected, but in fact, his honor is saying that it would fall under the police power. So, imbis na papasukin mo sa bahay na nandun yung mga dokumento, you will do the same by asking these agencies whether it is the BIR, the banks, or AMLA to now reveal. These documents. So that's my question. Is it in the prosecutions, is it the point of view of the prosecution na iba yun? Hindi ba invasive yun? Kayo gumamit ng word na invasionary, but I'll use invasive, I think. Anyway, please answer and then we'll give the floor to the defense, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Counsel for the panel for prosecutors, may I answer?

Yung pong search warrant, kung ano man na makuhang ebidensya doon, ay directly admitted and that is now considered as evidence by the court that issued the search warrant. Ngayon, nasa mga partido na, and I refer to both parties, to decide which of those documents may be relevant in terms of the evidence that they need to present.

Which of those documents may be relevant in terms of the evidence that they need to present? Yun pong nakikita po natin sa SABPINA, it is not in any way invasive because as I mentioned earlier and as pointed out by Senator Enrile when he was the presiding officer in the corona trial, we are simply having those documents produced. The admissibility of those documents Will only be determined after if offered by the parties. Kaya po sa aming mga pananaw ay malaking malaki ang pagkaiba ng search warrant sa subpina.

Your Honor, may I be— With the permission of the Lady Senator-Judge, counsel for respondent may now give his answer to her query. You may proceed, Sir. Thank you, Your Honors.

Your Honors, ang posisyon po ng depensa dito ay subpoena and a search warrant are very much similar, and that both are compulsory processes. So, yes, hindi tayo papasok sa bahay ng isang tao o ng nasasakdal, but it will be intrusive because we will be opening up all the financial transactions for, sabi nga dito, almost 20 years of the respondent. Kaya po, katulad ng isang search warrant, the things that we are asking for through a subpoena must be particularly described. Kanina po nabanggit po ng aking kagalang-galang na opposing counsel na particularly described na po yung kanilang naisulat. However, the defense does not agree with that proposition because if you look at it, tama naman po, nakasulat po dito ang hinihingi nila: account opening and maintenance records, KYC documents, information files, signature cards, all account and transaction records, ledgers, journals. Basically, Your Honors, this is everything. Ibig sabihin, ni-specify lang nila ang nilalaman ng lahat ng bank records ng respondent. So, in our view, Your Honors, while they took pains to specify each and every document, the truth of the matter is, they're asking for everything. Ngayon, pagdating sa subpoena, and even in the case they cited, Roco v. Contreras, ang nakasulat po doon is that for a subpoena to be validly issued, when we talk about particularly describing kung ano yung hinihingi, it has to be evidence that is both relevant and material. So ang tanong namin, saan ba dito yung relevant or material?

Ronell M. Golla

Jeremy

So, pero dito, hinihingi natin 20 years worth of records. And then, papano po yun? Hihimayin natin, maghahanap tayo ngayon kung may relevant o wala. Which brings me back to yung BIR records. Nakaseal po yung box. So, I would say, both parties, hindi natin alam kung anong nasa loob nun. Yet, we're hoping, na somehow, pag nabuksan yung box na yun, meron po tayong makikitang ebidensya. And that's why, Again, with all due respect, we called it a fishing expedition. Kasi hindi naman na-identify kung ano mismo doon yung pwedeng ebidensya laban sa sinasabing unexplained wealth ng vicepresidente. So, with the question, for us, yes, the Stonehill case, Stonehill v. Diokno, directly applies to the current proceedings. Kasi nga po doon, sinasabi talaga na dapat Specified yung hinihingi, particularly described and relevant. But as of this point, they're asking your honors for all of these things. And again, while they specified each and every document, kung babasahin niyo po ng mabuti ito, they're actually asking for all bank records without, in fact, telling us which transaction is relevant to their acquisition. Which transaction will actually support their acquisition? Yun po yung aming pananaw dito sa tanong ng ating kagalang-galang hukom. Thank you po.

If Your Honor, please may be allowed to respond.

Hold on, hold on, counsel for the panel of prosecutors. Senator Judge P is the one asking the questions.

Unless it's not a debate between the two councils, you're merely responding to answers from questions by senator-judges.

I actually prefer not, pero alam mo na, baka sabihin naman na may bias tayo pag di ko naman pinayagan. I defer to— Senator

Judge Pia, you asked a question, they answered. It is not for the opposing council to answer points raised. They had that chance when they did their oral arguments, rebuttal and surrebuttal. You may proceed with your questions, Senator Pia.

Sige, my question is, what is your question? Or what is your comment? Go ahead.

But

keep it brief. Keep it brief.

Thank you so much, Your Honor. I just wanted to point out that this is the first time, actually, an impeachment court is faced with the challenge of determining whether the charges of unexplained wealth are valid or not.

Previous corona case, hindi po pinayagan ng impeachment court yung Article 2.4 ng Article 2. At kung ang magiging batayan po natin ay yung naging mga desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema, sinabi mismo ng Supreme Court in several cases na pag ang usapin ay unexplained wealth, kailangan makita yung kabuoan ng kinita ng isang lingkod bayan at yung mga dineclare niya sa salihan. Just to quote just a very short portion, sabi ng Supreme Court, from the same case I cited earlier, the

ombudsman's failure to account for all lawful sources of income, including proceeds from business ventures and government benefits, further weakens the allegation that Rafael's wealth was unexplained. The incomplete assessment disregarded his accumulated assets over decades of public service, making it impossible to determine whether his property acquisitions exceed his legitimate financial capacity." Hindi lang naman po dito sa harapan nitong hukom na ginagawa yung pagtingin sa kabuuan ng isang lingkod bayan. The Supreme Court has done it in this case where they looked at decades of the financial records of the person charged with unexplained wealth and it has also happened in the cases of Rabusa, And Ligot, which were decided recently by the Honorable Court. Thank you.

Your Honor, may I at least be given just one minute to respond to that, Your Honors? But, of course, I will submit to the pleasure of— Senator

Judge Villanueva, I

give you the same opportunity, I'm assuming.

Yes, Your Honors. Again, hindi ko po tinutuligsa o ino-oppose yung mga na-mention na case ng aking Distinguished Opposing Counsel. However, those cases do not involve impeachment. And why is that relevant? Because in impeachment, as we have said, merong allegation of unexplained wealth, pero wala naman pong nakasuporta ng mga documents para makita natin ano ba yung basis na naging allegation. Pangalawa po, again, in impeachment, according to the case of the Territory v. House of Representatives, meron po tayong tinitingnan kung ano ba talagang impeachable offense. At yun po ay, again, offenses or acts or omissions committed While the public officer is occupying the impeachable office and in relation to such office, that enough, Your Honors, is very clear under the decision. That is all, Your Honors.

Thank you, Council for Respondents. Senator Judge Pia, may proceed.

Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer, I'll go to my next point but I will kind of overlap with this point as well so bear with me.

My next point, Mr.

So, para maintindihan ng mga kababayan natin

That is a conclusion of fact. Nangyari na daw yun. And if there's another allegation that says, therefore Juan is guilty of robbery, that is a conclusion of law. So, again, I try my best not to be technical. It's in my, I would have wanted to be a teacher if not a lawyer, so I do like to be able to explain things well.

So ang hinahanap dito is: bakit mo gustong patunayan yung facts mo? Yun yung kailangan sa ultimate facts. Kailangan mong patunayan bakit mo sinasabing Juan robbed the house of Mario. Di sasabihin mo, ang ultimate facts diyan, example, is si Juan ay nakita doon sa vicinity ng bahay ni Mario.

And then later on, para nga maputanayan yung robbery, i-allege ngayon yung elements of the crime that constitute robbery. So, nung di pa ako abogado, di ko naman alam ang difference ng robbery and theft. Yung robbery kasi qualified yan eh. So pumasok siya sa bahay using violence. That's what makes it robbery. So kailangan na i-allege yun. Sorry to be a bit technical. Alam kong yan ang phrase of the day. Let's not be technical. Phrase of the week, phrase of the month. But we have to be able to Thank you very

much.

Thank you

very much.

I'm just speaking naman for myself kung ano yung mga sinabi ko dun sa aming meeting na hindi ko naalalang nabanggit. Baka naman nasabi, hindi ko lang naalalang na-emphasize kasi nga limited yung time. But I do recall that it's in the complaint, it's in the answer, and then it's also in the memorandum. So, pinupursue nyo pa ba ito? Kasi me as a judge, importante ito. Kasi, um, paano ba didepensa ng maayos kung hindi nga nag-a-allege ng Nang ultimate facts that go into the case. And then, for the prosecution naman, may I ask you kung saan, without, because bawal ko, natanungin ko for you to state your case. I cannot do that, no? But what I'm asking is if you can point out sa inyong articles kung saan dun yung allegations of ultimate facts. Kasi public document naman yan eh. Para lang maaral ko, naasan dyan yung allegations nyo? of Ultimate Facts. And this is where, before I pass on the floor to the parties to answer, I want to go into the principle of fishing expedition. Nagkataon na I came across the trial that we had for former Chief Justice Corona. And lumabas yung issue na iyon, na sabi ko, eh, exacto ito yung pinag-aaralan natin for today.

Yung fishing expedition, and no less than the defense had to explain it in Filipino, kasi sabi, baka hindi alam yung ibig sabihin ng fishing expedition, pangingisda ba daw yun? Parang hindi naman daw yun yung translation, no? Pero ito yung naghahanap ka, naghahagilap ka ng… Kasi wala kang ebidensya. So I'll go back to a case and saman niyo ito sa response niyo. Doon po sa kasong Afolohensia v. Metro Bank in 2014, humingi dito ang petitioner ng motion for issuance of subpoena, dosis tecum, at testificandum at sinabing padala daw ng documents relative to their loan to Metro Bank as well as those covering exjudicial foreclosure. Sabi ng Supreme Court, this is tantamount to building their whole case from the evidence of their opponent. Bawal daw yun. Hindi daw pwede na yung kaso mo nakabase lang dun sa sasabihin mo dun sa kabila. Labas mo nga lahat nang meron ka dyan. No, your case has to be built. Yung evidence mo has to be there. So I will also ask both parties, is that jurisprudence relevant to this case for the prosecution and then also for the defense? And then let us

Also include a discussion on why

this is or is not a phishing expedition. Yun nga, napaka-importante po kasi ito dahil it is ingrained in a complaint na yung allegations mo ng ultimate facts, mapuprove mo ngayon yun with the evidence. Hindi pwede na wala kang ebidensya, hihingin mo lang ng hihingin by way of Supina. Clear po yun sa batas. Kaya nga gusto kong ipaliwanag niyo sa akin. Educate me why this applies, why this is not a fishing expedition, why the case I cited does not apply because I assume that's the position of the prosecution. And then for the defense, ano naman po yung position niyo? Salamat.

The counsel for respondent will give his answer first. First, with respect to the question of Senator Judge Pia on ultimate facts as well as on fishing expedition thereafter, counsel for the panel of prosecutors. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready.

Thank you, Your Honor. Pagdating po doon sa sinasabi namin na lack of ultimate facts. Ito po ay nagsimula pa lang doon sa Committee on Justice when the impeachment complaints were filed. Because the allegation, and I'll stick just with this, I believe, Article 2.

Pagdating po kasi doon, there was an allegation of unexplained wealth. Pero wala pong nakasulat kung saan nila nakuha, ano yung basehan ng unexplained wealth na iyon. Ano yung act na ginawa ng Vice President? Kailan iyon ginawa? At so sa amin, para masabi nilang nagkaroon ng unexplained wealth, ang basis, if I may remember, was really just the fact na yung SALN niya ay lumaki from 2007 to 2025, which sa aming palagay does not show any factual allegation whatsoever, except for the fact that it grew bigger over a span of 20 years. Pangalawa, wala rin pong naka-attach, which I mentioned in the oral arguments last week.

Naghanap ng mga ebidensya na sakaling makasuporta doon sa aligasyon na iyon. That's very important for us because we had already filed our answer before AMLOC documents were suddenly produced to the issuance subpoenas, before the BIR box that we are concerning ourselves with was presented before the Committee on Justice. Nasa panahon na iyon, tapos na po kami sumagot. In fact, When they were saying that it was a non-answer, to be very candid with everyone, we wanted to say because it was a non-complaint. Kasi walang ultimate facts na naka-allege for us to even answer. Now, before this honorable court, I do recall that in our answer, we also took pains to discuss the lack of ultimate facts and also What we feel were violations of due process before the Committee on Justice or at least with the proceedings that were conducted before the Committee on Justice. And that is also why we have a pending motion for exclusion na ikinalikip namin dun sa answer precisely because we were objecting to the fact that these pieces of evidence were produced after we had already filed our answer. Now on the fishing expedition, I think on the fishing expedition, your honors, our main point is this, even if we read the twin requests for subpoenas, ulit-ulit po, nakasulat po doon, because this may show context, because this may prove something. At para sa atin, this only shows, and at least, again, on the part of the defense, This is somewhat already an admission na hindi pa nga nila alam kung ano mismo doon sa mga hinihingi nila ang pwedeng sumuporta sa mga aligasyon na unexplained wealth. And that's why if you read the entire request, it uses the word may several times and it even says in one paragraph, I think it's 3.24, but I might be mistaken. That, at least with the request for, with their memorandum, rather, in their memorandum, nakasulat po doon that this does not assume wrongdoing, but they want those documents, nonetheless, to see if something there will actually help support their allegations. That is why we are calling it a fishing expedition. Dahil in Tagalog, para po maintindihan, sa aming pananaw, sa dami ng hinihing dokumento, Para po itong nagtatapon po tayo sa dagat ng isang napakalaking lambat at umaasa tayo na kahit papano may mabingwit kahit isang pirasong ebidensya. Maraming salamat po. Counsel for the panel of prosecutors, the Honorable Jocno.

Thank you, Your Honors. The question propounded to this representation first is, what are the ultimate facts alleged in the articles of impeachment? Yun po ay nakasaad sa page 7 of the articles. And if I may be allowed to just read them briefly.

You may do so, counsel.

Thank you, your honor. Respondent Vice President Sara Z. Duterte committed culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust when she A. Amassed unexplained wealth, manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings during her incumbency as a public official. B. failed to fully and truthfully disclose all her and her spouse's assets, liabilities, and net worth in her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth, including in her silence for the years 2022, 2023, and 2024, and failed to divest and instead willfully continued all her business interests during her tenure as Vice President for the years 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 Please allow me to briefly explain why these are ultimate facts. Ultimate facts are basically the essential factual elements that make up a party's cause of action or defense. Halimbawa po, pag-murder, treachery, evident premeditation, lahat ng mga kinakailangan ng batas para mapatunayan na murder po siya. In our case, we are alleging, first of all, unexplained wealth. And based on the jurisprudence, the elements of unexplained wealth, the factual elements are amassing unexplained wealth, manifestly disproportionate to one's lawful income and earnings during one's incumbency as a public official. So nasatisfy po namin yung requirement ng pag-allege ng ultimate facts or essential factual elements sa tatlong bagay na po ito. The evidentiary facts follow In the succeeding pages of the articles. Doon po namin dinitalie kung ano yung mga ibat-ibang paraan. Kung paano nakuha o naamas ni Vice President. Yun nga

ang sinasabi natin na unexplained wealth. On to the issue of fishing expedition. Yun pong fishing expedition po ay alimbawa may sabina na baka sakali meron tayong makita. Yun po ang ibig sabihin ng fishing expedition. When the party requesting information does not know what might be produced and just as an off chance tries to use that instrument in order to gain evidence that may be used against the other party. Dito po, malaki ang pagkaiba ng sitwasyon. Maalala po ninyo, during the hearings before the Committee on Justice, the Executive Director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council testified and produced documents Showing that from 2007 up to the present, 6.7 billion pesos ang dumaan po sa account ni Vice President Sarah Duterte. On that basis, and if we go deeper into that report, it says that during the period from 2007 to 2013, during the time that she served as Mayor and Vice Mayor, umabot po sa halos o lampas tatlong bilyong piso ang dumaan. Sa kanyang mga accounts. So may basihan po tayo para ipalabas ang bank records. We are not just guessing that there is something there because the AMLA itself has confirmed that there were covered and suspicious transaction reports submitted to them in those amounts that I mentioned. Malayo po ang phishing expeditions sa ginagawa ng prosecution dito po. If we had no basis at all, if we did not know what was in the AMLA reports, ayun po, maaaring sabihin na phishing expedition. But in this particular case, we know because these are matters of record presented before the Committee on Justice. Second po, ang phishing expedition, maaaring magamit yan sa ibang mga aligasyon tulad ng baka meron kang hindi na-declare sa iyong salhen. But when it comes to issues of unexplained wealth, it's very clear. The decisions of the court are very clear. To know whether a government official has amassed unexplained wealth, we must look at the entire incumbency of that official. Starting from day one, we look at their salen, we look at all the income that he or she has earned, both lawful and not, and from there we make a determination. Whether there was unexplained wealth or not. For these reasons, Your Honors, the fishing expedition argument in our view is totally untenable.

Senator Judge Pia, do you have further questions?

It's actually just a follow-up to how the prosecution responded. I think Senator Alan Peter will go into it but since this is my line of questioning, I'll follow up lang on this point.

His Honor, I earlier mentioned the fruit of the poison tree doctrine. And ulitin ko, pagka yung pinanggalingan ng information nyo e bawal, hindi nyo na pwedeng gamitin yon. So, His Honor said, I'm referring to Congresswoman Prosecutor Chelle Giocno, they know the contents of the AMNA report, something to that effect, because it was presented in the impeachment. Hearing in the House. That is correct, right? That is your statement? Yes. Oo. And I ask my question again. I will give both parties the opportunity to respond.

Ano yung basihan na i-reveal ng AMLC and their representatives sa inyo in the impeachment hearing in the House?

Ang nakasaad sa law, I don't even want to use my understanding of the law because it's what is read in the law and I won't take up the time of this court na isa-isahin ko yun pero nakasulat doon na confidential ito. So ano yung basis na mailabas yun doon sa impeachment court? Because and since the presiding officer has given me the permission to To share in general the discussion in our focus last week, isa dun sa napag-usapan namin precisely was yung information na lumabas doon, kung yan ay walang basihan na ilabas, walang legal basis na ilabas yung information, hindi yan pwedeng idugtong dun sa mga allegations na meron kayo. So that's my question.

And during our caucus, isa din sa lumabas na discussion, pero allowed ang AMLC and the specific officers to share that information. But the specific provision of the law, and please both councils, please respond, please elaborate on how this supports or does not support your case, ang specific provision dun sa batas, Eh, yung sharing of information na yun, sabi, Oy, kayo, AMLC Council, mag-develop kayo ng rules kung paano kayo makakapag-properly share sa agencies. I believe, I believe, and again, you feel free to elaborate on this or correct me, that's referring to the bank institutions, the AMLC hierarchy, and the agencies they deal with, not in court because Ulitin ko, nakasulat dun, confidential. So, I will leave this here, that if it is confidential, it does not allow that this be divulged in the manner it was divulged, then how do you use that? Because that is precisely the doctrine of the fruit of the poison tree. Please, take your time to tell us why. That information is not the fruit of the poison tree and obviously for the side of the defense, they will tell us why they believe that it is the product of the fruit of the poison tree. Thank you, Mr. President.

Council for the panel of prosecutors will please respond.

Your Honor, Section 8A of the Anti-Money Laundering Law is really intended to prohibit or prevent leaks by officials of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. But it was never intended to prevent subpoenas coming from courts, including the impeachment court. Almost every week, the Sandigan Bayan issues subpoenas for AMLA records. And despite what would appear to be a very categorical prohibition contained in that section, every time subpoenas are issued by the Sandigan Bayan, they are honored by the AMLA, and no one is questioning them. Ganun din po itong impeachment court. The subpoena issued by this impeachment court is for the purpose of determining accountability based on the power that is expressly given by the Constitution. Ang amin pong paniwala is that confidentiality cannot trump accountability. Thank you.

Counsel for Respondent, may I reply?

Thank you, Your Honor. I cannot verify if indeed the Sandigan Bayan Act as mentioned by opposing council issues subpoenas against AMLA every week. So that I will not comment on because I cannot verify that. What is clear to us, Your Honors, as we have demonstrated last week, is that 8 is an absolute prohibition. And again, this was the latest amendment of the law back in 2021. And for us, your honors, that is why when this was presented, the House Committee on Justice, we had our objections to such matter. And in fact, your honors, it is the subject of our petition, the Supreme Court, and aside from that, a subject of our motion for exclusion before this honorable court. Ngayon po, sa atin, talagang yung tinutumbok natin is it is, in fact, within the fruit of the poisonous tree. In fact, I'm surprised, Your Honors, because, Your Honors, nanabanggit na rin po ng aking Distinguished Opposing Counsel na nakita na nila, may records na sila. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it was also attached to the Articles of Impeachment. So kung meron na pala, bakit pa nila pinapasabi na ngayon sa Impeachment Court? Is it because, I don't want to speculate, maybe I just won't go there. But ang sa akin lang po is, we have questioned this all throughout. Why? Because to us, unang-una, bawal siya. Pangalawa, hindi siya relevant. Bakit hindi siya relevant? Your Honors, transactions do not equate to wealth. Transactions do not equate to net worth. Especially if tinatali natin siya sa SAL-N. Because transactions happen over the course of the year, and in this case, years. But when you talk about SAL-N, we talk about net worth on a specific date and time. December 31, 2021

Just for the record and for the information of the senator judges, I'm not sure about the Sandigan Bayan issuing a subpoena every week as well against AMLA. But I'm well aware, the court is well aware of cases decided by the Supreme Court precisely on subpoenas issued by the Sandigan Bayan vis-a-vis the AMLC. Senator Judge Pia, can you wind up?

You're done? At this juncture, Chairwoman, I recognize Senator Judge Alan Cayetano for his interjection and questions. You may proceed, sir, when you're ready.

Before I ask questions, Mr. Presiding Officer, may I thank you, the Senate President Wynne Gatchalian, former Senate President Tito Soto, and the whole Court, because in our caucus, you did three things. One, you allowed us to have the weekend to Review all of the laws so that we can ask more intelligent questions. Two, you allowed to hear the discussions mostly by Senator Pia, Senator Pangilinan, Senator Lacson, and Senator, former Senator Soto. And then number three, we discussed how a complex or what word did you use a while ago, Mr. Presiding Officer, that it's two motions but there are

There may be issues underneath. Issues and

sub-issues. So after we ask questions and after you make a ruling, instead of asking for a division of the house just in case we do not agree, I'll make a manifestation and then if others agree on how we can... Manifest or submit in writing in what parts of the ruling we agree or disagree for the record. May

I proceed, Mr. President? Surely noted, Your Honor. You may proceed, sir. Good

afternoon, Atty. Jocno and Atty. Powa. Good

afternoon, sir.

So I really want to be enlightened. I have no illusion na magkakasundo yung dalawang side today because you have the eloquent Atty. Jocno on one side and the eloquent No Joke, No Joke on the… Other side. So sa pangalam pa lang baliktad na. But I think the discussions are very important. And I do appreciate your opening, Congressman Diokno. I appreciate your oral arguments because I've been pondering these questions. What if, hindi ko na sabihin this administration. Let's say in future administrations, this exact thing happens. Five years, three years, ten years, iba ang salen, iba yung income ng COA chairman or ng ombudsman. Ombudsman files cases many, mukhang maraming congressman makakasuhan ngayon. So, very, very much relevant yung ating pinag-uusapan ngayon. So, just in the spirit of liberality, same kay Sen. Pia, after one answers, if one wants to make a quick rebuttal, I'll ask you the question. Let's try to be concise. So, Council, may I ask, let's start with the case of Duterte versus House of Representatives. Thank you for reminding us about certain precedents and how I voted last time. But you would agree, di ba, that when you have legal proceedings, even in legislation, you follow what the latest law is. So, for example, if you're allowed to issue a general warrant before Stonehill versus Jokno, but after Stonehill versus Jokno, may So if before Stonehill v. Jocno, walang doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree, then some policemen will still submit evidence that was illegally acquired. But after that, we have to follow. So you did make your point about obiter dictum. I'll go to that. But I just wanna start out by saying that the fact is there is a Duterte v. House of Representatives. So with your permission, let's start discussing that. So this case of Duterte versus House of Representatives came out after the impeachment of CJ Corona, correct? Yes, Your Honor. And the two

Two elements were discussed in this case. The act charged must be impeachable under Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution; and, two, the act committed must be committed

during the term of the impeachable officer. You commented on that. Can you elaborate or give your stand regarding it? I think you agree with letter A, right? That the charge must be an impeachable offense. I mean, we all agree on that, right?

Well, I would distinguish, Your Honor, please, between what we would call ratio decidendi, or the rule in that particular case, and obiter dicta, which are side comments or incidental remarks made in the opinion of the court. If we are speaking of the ratio decidendi of the Duterte v. House of Representatives case, I would have to disagree that it relates to the statements that you mentioned. My understanding of that case is it really relates to the first mode of impeachment and the procedures that must be followed: the one-year ban provided in the Constitution; how that will be applied when impeachment complaints are filed by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives. Iyong pong nabanggit nila that the basis of any charge must relate to the incumbency of the official, in my view, that is obiter dicta, not necessary for the decision of the case.

I appreciate your answer. We'll go to that.

But regardless

of the Duterte v. House of Representative ruling, we do agree with Letter A. The act charged must be an impeachable offense under Article 11.2 of the Constitution. I would agree, but if I may be allowed to just qualify— No, this is just a general, this is not a trap question. So the officer has to be impeachable, and the acts charged should be an impeachable offense. And since you have betrayal of public trust, that's quite broad. So this is not a trap question, this is just laying the basis. But go ahead if you want to comment on that.

Yes, the acts charged must constitute an impeachable offense, and that power to decide— What is an impeachable offense is lodged exclusively with this honorable court. Okay. So, you

disagree that part of the ratio decidendi is the act must be committed during the term of the impeachable officer. Thank you for bringing it up now because I think all throughout the trial, especially in the articles where we will bring up acts before 2022, this discussion will be

The statement that the act must be committed during the term of the impeachable officer is not the law of the land. It's an obiter dictum.

In the first place, if your honor, please, that was not the exact statement of the court. The court said the basis of the charge must relate to the incumbency of the impeachable official, which does not rule out the presentation of evidence of acts or omissions that occurred before the person became an impeachable officer.

Judicial notice of the, as you said more eloquently and correctly, the acts during her term. So can you define, you defined this in your opening statement, but for the sake of this discussion, an obiter dictum is what?

It's a side comment, Your Honor, that is not necessary for the resolution of that case.

Yeah, and I agree with that, and it's a remark made or opinion expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause, or it's a by the way. That is incidentally or collaterally and not directly upon the question before him, or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, analogy, or argument, such are not binding precedents. Just for the public and for all of us, di ba? So ang sinasabi, yes, there can be a Supreme Court decision, but that part could be an obiter dictum, meaning hindi yan yung doktrina. That will bind us in making decisions whether it's issuing the subpoena or admissibility. But are you aware of the Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, GR 142-947, March 19, 2002? I won't take it against both of you if you do not. There are thousands of cases. It talks about what is obiter dictum. Have you passed about on this, both councils?

The prosecution characterized characterization of the requirement that the basis of the charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office during the current term of the impeachable officer as an obiter dictum.

But in the court of appeals, Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, in that case, the Supreme Court held An adjudication on any point within the issues presented by the case cannot be considered an obiter dictum, even where the point is only incidentally involved. So we agree if it's incidental, pwedeng obiter. But if it's on point within the issues, sabi ng Villanueva case, it is not. So long as it is presented and decided in the regular course of the consideration of the case and led up to the final conclusion. Or is a statement as to the matter of which the decision is predicated. The court added that a point expressly decided does not lose its value as a precedent because the disposition of the case is or might have been made on some other ground. And that where a court decides several points, none of such points can be regarded as having the status of a dictum. And one point should not be denied authority Merely because another point was and more dwelt on and more fully argued and considered. So, going back to the Duterte v. House of Representatives, the requirement that an impeachable act be committed in relation to their office and during the current term was not a remark made by the way. The Supreme Court and Bank laid it down as one of the enumerated principles that due process requires. which is the very ground on which the ruling was predicated. Even if the court also struck down the 2025 impeachment complaint based on the one-year bar, so this is the question. Does it not render the due process requirement laid out as a mere obiter dicta or because it's based on due process, regardless of the mode of initiation, regardless of the mode of how the articles of impeachment got here, Isn't due process still a requirement?

If I may be recognized, Your Honor? Yes,

counsel for the panel of prosecutors may respond.

Precisely, Your Honor, if a matter is within the issues resolved by the court, then it may not be considered as obiter dicta. But if we look at the decision in the case of Duterte v. House of Representatives, ang mismong nangyari po doon ay may naunang Ito

ang dalawang complaints that were endorsed at may sumunod na complaint filed by at least one-third of the members of the House. At yun yung tinutukan po ng ating Supreme Court. It was in that context that the Supreme Court made pronouncements about the one-year bar and even about due process. At no time in that case was it ever a fact in issue about the mode of impeachment that is involved in our case today. Ang pinag-uusapan po natin dito ay individual complaints that were then referred by the House to the Committee on Justice, heard by the Committee, and then brought back to the plenary, and eventually umabot po dito through articles of impeachment. So kahit may sinabi ang Supreme Court about impeachable offenses in relation to the charges, kami po ay naniniwala na hindi po yan pumapasok o sumasakok. Sa issues that were decided in that case.

I'll not argue with you because that's not my job here. I'll follow the Pia Cayetano style and move to the defense but just a follow-up question on that. So I respect your belief on that but my point is the legal principle of due process applied to that mode.

Is it not logical that it's the same legal principle on due process even if you use another mode?

First of all, if your honors please, when we speak of due process, of course, there are two types. Substantive and procedural due process. And when we speak of substantive, we're talking about protections to life, liberty, and property. Wala naman pong ganun na issue po dito sa atin because office is not a property. We're not talking about the life or liberty of the respondent. Ang pinag-uusapan po natin dito kung due process ang issue ay simply fundamental fairness. And I do believe that This proceeding does require fundamental fairness, but at the same time, it does not require that this court be hamstrung in terms of how to decide whether an offense is impeachable or not. That power is exclusively given to this court at dapat kayo lang po ang magdesisyon at magpasya kung ano nga ba yan. So when we speak of what is an impeachable offense, May kaugnayan po yan doon sa nabanggit ninyong the basis of the charge must relate to the incumbency because in our view that is really something that each member of this honorable court will have to decide when the time comes.

Later on I'll ask you that question whether or not what if ever can the Supreme Court decide or what of their pronouncements will be applicable to this court and that but my point is if we're saying that Pag ang mode of initiation is by one-third na pumirma diretsyo at ang nakalagay doon committed in relation to their office during the current term, wouldn't it be illogical if you use another mode and pwedeng hindi committed in relation to their office and during their current term? I don't think the Supreme Court would be illogical in saying this is the principle for due process in this mode but not in this other mode.

Even if we assume, Your Honor, that that is not obiter, the statement that the basis of the charge must relate to the incumbency of the impeachable officer, we submit that that still applies and we have satisfied that test. As I mentioned in my opening statement, integrity cannot be divided. Hindi po pwedeng biyakyan ng integridad.

President, an ombudsman, a COA chair who's, let's say, 60 years old but he started in government at 20 years old, he can be impeached by something he's done when he was 20 to 30, not only on what he's done when he was already an impeachable officer?

If we are speaking about unexplained wealth, Your Honor, I have repeatedly cited the cases of the Supreme Court that provide that we must look From the reckoning of the first day of service of that public official, look at all the income that person has amassed and determine whether it is manifestly disproportionate to the lawful income that he has reported. Yes, I agree in terms

of holding that person liable and accountable. But what I'm saying is that, let's say he was a counselor, then he was a customs director, then he was BIR, then he's now COA.

Isn't the remedy for all these other positions that weren't impeachable is through the regular courts and regular case build-up, etc. But once you're an impeachable officer, you're being held accountable during the term that you are, in fact, an impeachable officer because usually when you're an impeachable officer, it's too hard to prosecute you the normal way. Isn't that the logic there or you disagree, counsel?

I would have to respectfully disagree. Ang pinag-uusapan po natin kasi dito ay betrayal of public trust. And I think it's very clear that when we speak of betrayal of public trust, essentially we are looking at whether the public official is fit or unfit to continue in service. Kung siya po ay nakapag-amas ng unexplained wealth nung siya ay vice mayor o mayor na umabot sa bilyong-bilyones, I think that would have a very big impact on the Court's decision. Whether that person should continue in office or whether they are fit to have that office. With

the permission of Senator Judge Alan Gaetano, with your indulgence, sir, a request was conveyed to the Presiding Officer to declare a very brief break. This is not a break for all of us but a very brief break of five minutes so that

Council may answer to the call of nature. That was the message conveyed to the Presiding Officer, including Senator Judge Cayetano. So Chair declares a five-minute break. We shall resume at 4.05.

Resumed. We shall resume the interventions of Senator Judge Alan Cayetano.

Portaining to the issue at hand on the twin request for subpoena by the prosecution. You may proceed, Senator Judge Allan, when you're ready.

Many, many times during this trial and even in the decision we'll have to make, this question will play a center, will be front and center. So may I ask, Atty. Powa, do you think that statement was a obiter dictum?

As stated, Your Honors, thank you for the question. Stated last week, Your Honors, it is our position of the defense that that is not obiter dictum. Precisely because, Your Honors, it is our theory that When the Supreme Court decided the case of Duterte v. H.O.R., the point that the one-year bar was triggered is precisely because there was a violation of due process. That's why, if you read the decision, Supreme Court, through the words of, of course, Senior Associate Justice Marvick Leonen, painstakingly discussed. What due process is actually in an impeachment proceeding? And in fact, there was a line in that decision that says that they wanted to clarify the guidelines on impeachment proceedings. Further to that, Your Honor, hindi lang po sa decision, pero pati po doon sa binibigay na primer or summary ng Supreme Court bago nila ilabas yung buong decision, they enumerated The guidelines, which was around, which were around seven points, if I'm not mistaken. And the sixth point is actually on what is an impeachable offense. And in fact, we have prepared copies of that primer for the senator-judges, which we can distribute. So that makita po niyo na while ang effect ay na-trigger yung one-year bar, It was really due process that the Supreme Court was discussing in that case to guide. Yes. Commission, counsel, correspondent, kindly submit that to the Clerk of Court. Yes, Your Honors. Thank you. You may proceed, sir. So, while the, as I was saying, Your Honors, while yung ang end result is na-trigger yung one-year bar and that's why void yung naging first round of impeachment. Ang talagang pinag-uusapan ng Supreme Court dito is the observance of due process in every stage of the proceeding. And that is why it is very important na mapag-usapan natin na yung kasama doon is really kung ano ba talaga ang isang impeachable offense. At nakasulat doon, if I may quote, the basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office. Meaning, in relation to their impeachable office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. So that is why, Your Honors, it is the view of the defense na hindi po obiter lang itong pronouncement ng Supreme Court na ito as to what constitutes as an impeachable offense.

Yes, I'm not texting. I got on my phone the Duterte v. House of Representatives because, of course, my follow-up questions was to

All modes of impeachment, Your Honor. That is our position. Kasi po, We would veer into absurdity na kung doon sa one-third mode tayo, ang impeachable offenses, limited lang sa term, pero pagdating doon naman sa other mode, which dinaanan, admittedly, at yun ang dinaanan nitong current proceedings natin, eh mag-iiba ang definition ng impeachable offense. I do not see any logic on why there is a difference because an impeachable offense is an impeachable offense. So, para po sa atin, That should apply. And in fact, the Supreme Court did not make a distinction as to the guidelines that it laid down in that decision, Your Honor.

So, in the first page, sabi dito, Second, considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, its effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its nature as a constitutional process, All legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review. While the court does not determine when, who, and whether an impeachable officer may be removed and disqualified from political office, it has the duty to construe and process mandated by the Constitution. So is this for you part of the Russia dissidenty or is this a... Obiter Dicto

Rasho, Your Honors. In fact, that's why the Supreme Court, when it started the decision, said that the end does not justify the means, no? Because it was precisely discussing the means. Ano ba yung dapat nating sinusunod na proseso?

So since we're talking about subpoenas, we'll go to the end and the means, the justified means.

With the permission of Senator Judge Allen, I would just like to get the assent of the counsel from the panel of prosecutors. The document sought to be distributed by the Council correspondent is a July 2025 discussion on the Duterte v. H.O.R. on the one-year bar rule. Again, it's dated last year. With the permission of the prosecution, we shall distribute it without prejudice to the Council for the panel of prosecutors to also

Furnish whenever it shall so desire because this issue as pointed out by Senator Judge Cayetano will linger until the end of the proceedings without prejudice to the counsel from the panel of prosecutors to so furnish also senator judges with their rejoinder to this document being furnished to the senator judges. Is that okay?

Your Honor, I believe that first of all may we request for a copy of that document. I believe that document refers to the office of the spokesperson of the Supreme Court. In which case, Your Honor, we would have to interpose an objection. Because any interpretation by the office of the spokesperson is not binding on the Supreme Court. What we must look at are the actual text of the decision.

Well, Counsel, you can say that in your rejoinder. Point that out in your rejoinder and point that out in... Your submission. We will do that, your honor. So ordered,

clerk of court is directed to kindly distribute the copies to the senator judges without

prejudice to the panel of prosecutors submitting a rejoinder to this document.

Senator Alan

Judge, Senator Judge Alan Cayetano, you may proceed, sir. Yes, and presiding officer,

to be fair to the, I wouldn't have objected if you objected to the distribution, but realistically, we won't have time to read it because magro-ruling na after. So, it'll be more of reference materials. But feel free also to, if you feel that you should submit in writing a rejoinder to be fair to everyone. So, if the voting was tomorrow and it would be unfair to distribute it. So, can I ask the same question, Congressman? So, I read, it's the first few paragraph, no? Sabi kasi dito, you heard me naman, no? You want me to read it again?

If I may be allowed to respond already to the question. First of all, Your Honor, I think we must point out one of the plainest reasons why that statement in the Duterte ruling is obiter dictum. And that simply is because there was no trial yet to speak of when the Supreme Court rendered that decision. Paano po magiging issue yung nangyayaring ngayon? Sa trial, samantalang nung dinesisyonan po yan ay wala pa pong trial. Therefore, any statements by the court about how the trial should be conducted are outside the issues of that case, and while they may be guidelines, they are not binding as judicial precedent to us and to the future generations. Actually, I was

referring to a different matter already, but just to that point, It's not how, it's what. It's paragraph 6. The basis of the charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. For the President and Vice President, these acts must be sufficiently grave amounting to the crimes described in Article 11, Section 3.1 of betrayal of public trust given by the majority of the electorate For the other impeachable officers, the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh the respect for their constitutional independence and autonomy. So this doesn't really tell us how to conduct the trial. This basically tells us that if we don't follow that, we're endangered of having a trial that's void ab initio.

I would have to respectfully disagree,

Your Honor. Anyway, we've gone through that argument and I won't argue with both of you.

This is what I read, no? Second, considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, it affects on independence of constitutional departments and organs and its nature as a constitutional process, all legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review. I'll stop there. Kasi nabanggit mo kanina, may I speak English Filipino? Nabanggit niyo po kanina na that's for us to decide and My interpretation, and I've felt like that many, many times, na zealous dapat ang impeachment court sa powers niya. Kasi, not only because it's sui generis, wala nga tong, wala tong, I

apologize to Senator Judge Riza Mayfong-Felde. So, wala nga tong, you cannot appeal the decision of the, my belief, you cannot appeal the decision of to acquit or to convict to the Supreme Court, diba? But the parameters, so let me use the words of the Supreme Court. Ang sabi niya, all

legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review. You disagree with this or you agree? In context ng sinabi mo kanina na it's within our power to make these decisions.

I believe what is the controlling decisions there, Your Honor, are the cases of Gutierrez. and Francisco because in those cases the issue of what is an impeachable offense was squarely brought before the court and the court said very clearly that that is purely a political question that's not within the judicial power for us to decide and I believe that that should be the controlling jurisprudence.

So let me be more specific. So for example we issue some subpoenas and we do not issue some. Can one or both of you, meaning the prosecution and defense, go to the Supreme Court and question it?

Well, there is always the possibility that some side, perhaps the defense, may claim that there is grave abuse of discretion, I believe, as they have done in their other petitions filed, and therefore make an attempt to stop the proceedings before this court. But as I have said last week, Your Honor, in our opinion, This Court has the sole and exclusive power to decide what an impeachable offense is, and no one, not even the Supreme Court, can dictate on this Court in making that decision.

Same answer? No,

Your Honor.

I have a different answer. Okay, you can go back to that question, and my follow-up question was, so let's say certain orders of the Court can... The prosecution or defense go up to the Supreme Court and question its constitutionality.

Yes, Your Honor. It is our position that either of the parties can do that. Why? Because sa atin niya ang nasabi natin kanina, that the Constitution cannot be read in isolation. So while the Constitution gives the sole power to the Senate to try and hear an impeachment case, we must read this in conjunction with, again, Article 3, Bill of Rights, and Article 8.

Pag sa tingin ng isang panig, merong grave abuse of discretion na naganap, we are of the position that in fact, this is a justiciable issue and can be brought before the Supreme Court, Your Honor.

So at least in that small point, I think we all agree that if we think there's grave abuse of discretion, there's a possibility that the Supreme Court will take it up. Not referring to any, I'm not referring to the subpoena, I'm talking in general. So I'll skip a few pages of my questions precisely because I wanted to elicit your opinions or your stand regarding the fact that the impeachment court is supreme but it's not true that we can do anything or we can just make decisions that are not based on statutes and on legal orders. In fact, when the Supreme Court issued a TRO Regarding the foreign accounts or the dollar account in the corona case, the impeachment court voted to respect the TRO. But of course, we did vote. So, there could have been a constitutional crisis if we voted not to. And then, of course, we know because of history, nag-waiver na lang si Chief Justice sa corona. So, can I go now to the ultimate facts?

I don't know if Senator Joel, but Senator Pia asked a little bit about this.

Just a quick review.

We're also governed by the rules of court when it comes to ultimate facts. This is what Section 1 says. In general, every pleading shall contain in a methodological and logical form a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts, including the evidence. On which the party relies on his or her claim of defense, as the case may be, if a cause of action or defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him or her will be clearly and concisely stated. So do, does the two councils agree that sa ultimate facts you have to include the evidence?

I would make a distinction, Your Honor, between what we call ultimate facts and evidentiary facts. Which are the pieces of evidence that could be used to come to the conclusion or to decide whether those ultimate facts are present in the case or not?

I think all of us lawyers agree with that. There's a difference between ultimate facts and evidentiary facts. But the rules of court says, including evidence. Kasi kung walang including evidence, kailangan mo lang i-file ultimate facts. Pero pag sinabing kasama ang evidence, I don't... For me, it doesn't mean that every single testimony, every single document should be attached. So let me go to my second question. So pwede bang sa articles of impeachment, ultimate facts lang, walang naka-attached na evidence?

Ang requirement po sa pleading ay doon na Pagdapat nakasaad ang ultimate facts. But if you look at the articles of impeachment that are before this court, it also contains evidentiary factual allegations to support the ultimate facts that are contained therein.

Thank

you for that

answer. Actually, that was my next question. Did it contain and you answered it. So, with respect to the Sabalia and Cabrera impeachment complaints, is it correct that there was no authentic records that were attached when they were filed? Factual lang tong tanong ko.

If your honor, please. First of all, I would have to raise an issue with respect to whether this honorable court is acting as an appellate or review court of what happened during the House proceedings. The power to initiate an impeachment complaint is exclusively lodged with the House, while the power to try and decide that impeachment case is exclusively lodged with this honorable court. And I don't believe that it is part of the function to go back to what may have happened during the proceedings before the House, since the articles have already been transmitted to this— Well,

counsel, even your students, colleagues, recognize that you are a brilliant man, you're very well learned sa law, but minsan mabilis kasi actually that's not where I was going. Binaliktad ko lang. So two of my colleagues started with or in your discussions ano yung fishing expedition going down to ultimate facts and evidentiary. Ako, I wanted to distinguish when is it a fishing expedition and when it's not. So I just wanted to know as a fact. Or can we take judicial notice that there was no authentic records in the Sabalia and Cabrera?

It was

just preliminary because I wanted to compare it with other impeachment complaints. And I wanted to ask the question, when is it a phishing expedition or hindi? So these are legitimate questions. So factually, yung Sabalia and Cabrera ba may authentic records attached? Ang information ko wala. But I don't want to... I

believe, Sen. Judge Allan, that the Zabalia and Cabrera complaints were attached as an annex, if I'm not mistaken, to the respondent's answer. Would that be correct, Atty. Paul? And

to be fair,

it was... As well as the annexes? Yes, Your Honor. In fact, the Presiding Officer noticed that it lacked a page in one of the annexes to the, I think, Zabalia complaint, which you, I think, pointed out. So that's

a fact. So it's in the records, Sen. Judge Allan.

In the absence of authentic supporting record, what factual basis did the prosecution rely on to say that allegations were sufficient in form and substance?

If I recall correctly, Your Honor, please, there were some attachments to both complaints and I'm not aware of any rule in the House of Representatives as far as impeachment cases are concerned that limit the What may be discussed or investigated by the committee to only what is contained and attached to the impeachment complaint?

I'm not even questioning it. I'm asking questions on if there were authentic records. So I'll move on. In the complaint against President Bongbong Marcos, The finding was the complaint failed to establish any factual nexus between the President and an impeachable offense. What are presented were policy and disagreements and generalized accusations, not ultimate facts. Yun ang finding ng Committee on Justice. Correct?

Yes, Your Honor. To the

best of

my

recollection. So that's my question. After answering that question, does the prosecution agree that the requirement of alleging ultimate facts

Yes,

Your Honor. And as I recall, when the members of the Committee examined the complaint filed against the President, the conclusion of the Committee was in fact that there were only conclusions of law contained in that complaint, not Allegations of Ultimate Facts Yes.

Yet, in that complaint, there were authentic documents attached, authentic records, and the House did not ask na masupina yung AMLA, BIR, and bank records of the President.

The requirement, if Your Honor please, of Ultimate Facts is really based on what is alleged in the

But what

was the exact words of council? Ang katotohanan ay hindi confidential.

So why in the case of President Marcos is the katotohanan confidential but in the case of Vice President Sara, it's not confidential?

Wala naman po akong maalala ng ruling ng committee in the case of the President na meron silang sinabing confidential. What I recall is that the Conclusion was that the complaint did not allege ultimate facts.

So there was a conclusion even before asking for all of this. But in this case, balikta, there was a conclusion that there's no nexus between the president and an impeachable offense. In this case, walang authentic documents pero humihingi ng supina kasi yung katotohanan hindi confidential. So, which goes to my Well, first, let me honor who I should honor because it seems that the Lisa Massa complaint which was endorsed by ACT party list was here kanina and I think Antonio Tino, I think Sara Elago was here last week and I think Representative Ko was here. So in their case kasi, I can say walang selective. Justice because they wanted the same standards of President and Vice President. So that's my next question. We want fairness for everyone and for the Filipino people, but would it be unfair to require 20 years of documents from AMLA, BIR, and bank accounts from Vice President Sara without requiring the same from President Bongbong considering that all of these scandals is happening during his administration?

If the allegations of the complaint against the President did, in fact, contain ultimate facts, I would see no reason why the Committee on Justice should not have proceeded with it.

So I'll take that answer. May I ask the same question?

Rule 8, ultimate facts including evidence. So the answer of the prosecution was that, basta't may evidentiary facts. But ang nakalagay kasi sa Section 1 ng Rule 8, including evidence, what is the position of the Defense on this. The

defense follows strictly the rules, Your Honors. While I agree with the distinguished opposing counsel na iba yung ultimate facts and evidentiary facts, I don't want to blur that line. Tama naman po yung sinabi ng ating opposing. But yun nga po yung punto namin. In the Sabalia and Cabrera complaints, wala pong ultimate facts at wala din pong evidence or evidentiary na nakakalakip doon po sa mga complaints and which is the

So kasi may, I'll ask na rin my next question. Why is it definite in your view?

Opo. So on the first question, yes, Your Honor. Even if I were to be representing the President now, I would have the same view, no? Na hindi po pwedeng ganun ka 20 years ang span ng mga documents na hiningi, precisely because the jurisprudence provides that for a valid subpoena to issue, it might, it must be particularly described, plus Yung sinasabi po natin na relevance. Now, to the second question as to why it is not particularly described. Your Honors, unang-una, let's start with the bank accounts. Yung bank accounts na naka-enumerate sa kanilang request, it is our position na yun po yung natawag kanina na Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Because as you can see, lahat po ng pinanggalingan na accounts na yan ay yung AMLOC. But which we are contesting. Sa amin po, unlawful po yung naging disclosure sa Committee on Justice. But more importantly, pangalawa, aside from just the mere bank accounts, the documents they are asking, Your Honors, while they are specified, kung titignan mo talaga ng mabuti kung anong hinihingi nila, they are asking for all, all bank records, without any assertion as to why all of these are relevant. To prove whatever allegation they have stated in the articles of impeachment.

I'll skip many questions here and go to that question. But to be fair, Congressman Dioknas, you said that's an exclusive authority, right, power of the House. So if I want to question the difference, I'll do that in either the Senate or as a private citizen. So I won't go into that. But I ask that now in context of Whether or not the certain parameters in the supina you're asking for is valid or not. So let me just go to this series of questions.

This is really a discussion into what is substantial facts, what's ultimate facts, what's essential facts, what are... And as you said, Atty. Powa, we don't want to bore everyone with that, but... It's important in terms of due process. So, basically, di ba, the ultimate facts are that that establish the charge. In this case, unexplained wealth. So, let me put it this way in my question to Attorney and Congressman, Prosecutor Diok. So, like, if I say that may kilala akong politiko, commissioner ng ganito, or congressman, senator, whatever, Ang SAL-N niya was 1 peso or what's a reasonable amount. SAL-N niya was 1 million, 20 years later, it's 20 million versus the Commissioner of BIR in 5 years, it gained 50 million compared to this congressman ganito. Then I said, eto lang income niya, unexplained wealth yan. In your view, is that sufficient na for the impeachment court then to issue the subpoenas or do you have to specify?

For example, you say that that commissioner, sa SAL-N niya, he only had two cars, but he actually has more than four. Therefore, panging supina para sa LTO. O that commissioner, ang sabi niya, isa lang ang bahay niya. Pero supina sa LRA kasi apat ang nakita namin. Kasi on the later examples, medyo mas malinaw yung ultimate facts. Pero yung pag sinabi mo lang, eto SAL-N, Ito tumaas, which was my point actually in my last few vlogs, that just because tumaas yung sal-en, that doesn't mean that there's ill-gotten wealth. But my question there was, does that give us now the authority to get the bank accounts, the AMLA and the BIR? Because whatever we do in the impeachment court is for impeachable officers. But nanonood din yung Sandigan Bayan, nanonood din yung RTC, MTC, nanonood din yung Supreme Court. So whatever rule we have here, that will influence then how we deal with barangay captains all the way to anyone who's not impeachable.

For unexplained wealth, Your Honor, I believe the ultimate facts must include the following. First, that the person involved amassed wealth. Second, that that wealth is manifestly disproportionate

So kailangan po natin makita kung ano yung kanyang kayamanan at kailangan natin ikumpara doon sa lehitimo niyang kinita. And that can be only determined by looking at the records that we are requesting from this honorable court. No,

but if you're just looking at the SAL-N at yung kinita niya, so I'll give you an example. I won't name the person para walang mag-react. But he was senator, I think in 1987, an outstanding human being. And he was telling us, etong lupa na ito nabili ko ng 1980 o 1970 na 50,000. Nabenta ko ng 1990. E kaya lang sa SAL-N, ang nakalagay kasi doon yung acquired cost. So nilagay ko 50,000. So kung titignan mo kami, then he named some great Other great senators, etc. Nakasabayan niya, congressman at dito. Titignan mo, si senator ganito, kami lahat. O ang sal-end namin, baka 5 million. Pero yung 100,000 na lupa na binili namin nun, baka 5 million, 20 million, 30 million. So if one of those officials suddenly sold the property and then placed the money that came in, so let's say the 100,000 property was sold for 5 million, but then, for example, pinag-blow out niya sa pamilya yung 500,000 before December 31 of that year, mag-i-increase yung kanyang SAL-N by 4.5 million. So if you just compare his income, na sweldo niya, with that, that will not show you that he has ill-gotten wealth. So compared na pagka-inallege ko na ang sweldo niya 200,000, eto, o, pero bakit may bahay siya sa ganito, ganito, ganito, nawala sa SAL-N niya. So I agree, nasundan natin yung ebidensya. If the salyen is much more than what you're making, that could spark your curiosity, your suspicion, and continue to investigate. But do you make the conclusion now and file the impeachment case that since malayo yung salyen sa income, therefore ilgaten yun, without giving that person a way to explain before you supina every single document about their lives?

That's precisely why, Your Honor, they call it unexplained wealth. Doon po natin malalaman yan sa mga dokumento. No, I agree. They call it unexplained. I'm sorry, Your Honor.

I'm sorry. I'm the one. Please, please continue.

Kung halimbawa sa binigay niyong example ay nag-appreciate yung value of the land, then I would not call that unexplained. I would call that explained wealth.

Yes. But you're introducing a new concept now, unexplained wealth versus ill-gotten wealth. I agree with you. Unexplained wealth is that if you look at the saleen at hindi ito tumutugma, may unexplained wealth. That's why you ask them to explain it. And then pag hindi maganda yung explanation and may ebidensya ka, then you can go against that person for ill-gotten wealth. Diba? But like in certain parts here, I saw some That I would consider even without asking you evidence, but for example, yung mga kumpanya, sabi dito lugi yung kumpanya. So kung lugi yung kumpanya, hindi makakakontribute yun sa kanyang ill-gotten wealth kung meron man. So why are we getting all the documents about those companies? Doon pumapasok yung criticism ng iba, is this a fishing expedition? Kasi if I had five companies and they were all making Money, and supposedly, I only own 1% of that company but I'm getting half of that income. I would agree with you eh, supina lahat yan. Tignan natin yung flow niyan, baka yan yung pumasok sa akin. Pero lugi nga yung mga kumpanya eh. As an example ah, as an example. So, that's my point. Is it enough in the view of the prosecution panel just to allege? Malaki yung salin mo?

Bigger than your monthly sweldo? Both of us agree. It's unexplained. But is it ill-gotten? Or do you need more allegations to show that it was ill-gotten?

Well, Your Honor, please, the decision whether wealth is unexplained or, as you said, ill-gotten, is really a decision that this honorable court will make based on the evidence. Ang gusto lang po namin ay mailatag ang ebidensya sa inyong harap para kayong na mismo ang magsabi. At para malaman po yan ay we have to look at The Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. We have to look at the lawful income reported in the ITRs. We have to look at the bank records in terms of kung ano yung pumasok at lumabas sa kanilang mga accounts. As far as the businesses are concerned, that has to do with the third sub-charge under unexplained wealth, yung pong continuing to participate in business interests. Despite the clear and express prohibition provided in the Constitution, we want to know whether those businesses, yung ba ay mga operational ba ito? Ito ba ay talagang sasabihin natin na nandun yung sinasabi nga na inaamin ni Vice President sa kanyang salen na business interest nga niya yun?

Yeah, I'm skipping because this is mostly questions on fishing expedition.

I'll go to the defense after this, but can you tell us the difference between evidence and proof? In your layman's term or legal terms? Or if you want to look it up? But how do we explain to people the difference between evidence and proof?

Napakabigat po ng inyong tanong. In

our words lang.

I will try my best, Your Honor, to answer it. In a court proceeding, whether we're speaking of an impeachment court or a regular court, the judges look at the evidence. They may never be able to know the entire truth kasi ang pangyayari ay nangyari dati pa po. Essentially, a trial is really a reconstruction of something that happened before. So, it may happen in some cases.

Ang gusto po namin maiwasan na dito sa impeachment court ay meron po tayong hindi mailatag na ebidensya sa mga maestrado po na nandito para talagang maging buo yung larawan nila bago po kayo magpapasya. I

I don't think there's any question that all of us here want. The question is, do you have the evidence or are you fishing for the evidence? And that's a question not only for you but for every single impeachment process—not only [unclear], because myself, Senator Zubiri, Senator Chiz Escudero, then later on Senator Villanueva, have been in the House many times during impeachments of presidents and chief justices.

The reason I ask between evidence and proof is because if you have the evidence, you want the opportunity to bring it here, show the relevancy, connect it to the crime, we admit it so that if it's true, then we can convict. The opposite sides na will either question, hindi admissible yan or admissible pero walang relationship yan, etc. So what I'm saying is that If you're going to prove your case with no evidence except that if you get all of that,

then magiging arbitrary yung House of Representatives sinong gusto nilang i-impeach because almost any public official who's been there for a long time, you will see discrepancies in their SAL-N because unang-una iba yung acquisition cost at iba yung current value at iba din yung deadline ng December 31, which after this, I'll ask the defense to answer, then I'll go into the AMLA which is different from bank accounts. So, if you're coming to the court with evidence already, but kinukuha mo yung supina na yan, diba, to further prove your point, I don't think there'll be a question there. As Atty. Powa said kanina na, Kung yung BIR box na yan, alam natin yung laman, and dapat gamitin dito, dey ina-ledge niyo na. Pero kung hindi alam yung laman, are we fishing there if there's a tax evasion or wala? I don't know the answer. I'm asking you the question. You can answer it in any way you're comfortable in answering.

If I may briefly narrate the procedure that the House had to undergo for the articles to reach this honorable court. When the complaints were filed before the House of Representatives, the Committee on Justice was tasked not with conducting a trial, not with ferreting out all the evidence, but simply determining whether there was probable cause to proceed with the case. So hindi po namin hinanap yung kabuuan ng ebidensya dahil hindi po namin tungkulin yun. When we made the determination that there was sufficient

The presentation of evidence, even the subpoena or compulsion to present evidence will only happen when the trial takes place. At yung tinutukoy po ninyong fishing expedition, yun ay maaaring sabihin natin nangyari kung only if the party requesting the evidence or documents ay nagbaba kasakali lang, baka may makuha tayo dito. In our case, I have to disagree that there was any sort of phishing expedition because based on what the Committee on Justice and later the Plenary of the House found was sufficient, there was enough cause to proceed with the case. I'll

go to probable cause. Bakit sinabi mo baka sakaling may makukuha dito? You said hindi ganon. So anong makukuha natin if we grant all the subpoenas you're requesting?

The evidentiary facts, Your Honor, that were not yet available during the determination of probable cause.

The AMLC information appears to show that there were billions of pesos that went through the accounts of the Vice President during that period of time.

Let's go to that with the permission of the defense then. I think you're listing down naman. So, the Anti-Money Laundering Council, no, does not deal with income. They deal with flow, right? So, pag sinabing billion, that doesn't mean that a certain official has billions in their account. So, meaning, if I have a million pesos deposit on January 1, And then, on January 5, I take it out and put it in time deposit for 1 month. And 1 month later, it comes out with 2% time deposit. Hindi na 1 million yun. 1 million in, 1 million out, 2 million. 1 million in the time deposit, 3 million. Paglabas na may 2%, 1 million, 2 pesos, 1 million, 2,000 pesos, 4 million na yun. So, hindi evidentiary yun. Speculation sa ikot ng pera. Meaning, all I have to do is find someone with a bank account and give them a long enough period and I will say that they have hundreds of millions or billions.

Precisely, Your Honor. That is why we want the bank records to be produced. Because, as you mentioned, the only reports submitted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council pertain to covered and suspicious transaction reports.

The exact balances that were contained in those bank accounts. And it is only the bank records that will provide that information.

Agree. And it's suspicion, when you say suspicion, that does not mean necessarily suspicion that it's attached to a AMLA crime. But it could be suspicious meaning, six months walang gumagalaw, biglang everyday ngayon gumalaw. Diba? Yun yung definition ng, part ng definition ng AMLA. But if you cannot If you can't

connect AMLA and the bank accounts, that's precisely what the defense and other people are saying. Aren't you fishing between the three? Fishing means hindi mo pa hawak, so you're trying to get a fish, in this case, a very big fish. Di ba? So, pag sinabing hindi fishing expedition, meron ka ng ebidensya, but you want to prove that in court, and you need that to prove it, but you know what to prove already.

If we bring Your Honor's logic to its conclusion, that would mean that the Committee on Justice would have to conduct a full-blown trial, get all the evidence at that level, so that we do not have to fish anymore when we get to this Court, when that is not the contemplation of the procedure for impeachment under the Constitution. I won't argue what the House...

With the permission of the gentleman here on the floor, Sen. Gaetano, Last two questions. Thank you very much.

Sen. Escudero, myself, we were in the Estrada and Arroyo impeachment. It's harder to impeach a president than a vice president. But whether it was accounts, anong laman, property, kotse, we did our homework. So it's not my place to tell you, you did or not. Kaya nga tinatanong ko, may ebidensya ba o wala? Phishing Expedition or not. But as I said a while ago, I won't argue. So I have one last question after that, but I'll go first to the defense. In the context of what I asked, between those two examples, eto salin mo, eto income mo, malaki salin mo, we can agree it's unexplained. Kasi nga, you need to explain it further. But is it automatically ill-gotten wealth?

No, Your Honor.

So if it's not automatically ill-gotten wealth,

In your view, I mean, I read this from your, ano, maybe you can just restate, why is it a fishing expedition?

Opo, Your Honor, because precisely, yun pong sinasabi nilang unexplained wealth, they were basing it on 20 years, for one. Pangalawa, they couldn't pinpoint exactly: bakit mo nasabing may unexplained? Alin dito sa properties yung unexplained? Third, and if I may elaborate from our memo, if you look at the articles of impeachment, it presupposes that the Vice President earned 30 million over a span of 20 years. Yes, they did not think about the Vice President not being in public office from 2013 to 2016. They didn't think about the income that could have been generated by being married to a lawyer who had his own law office. So to us, it was basically conjecture, speculation, conclusion of law and fact to say, biglang, uy, may unexplained wealth po dito. That's basically our point. And then, secondly, the decision earlier, it was mentioned by distinguished opposing counsel, decision rests upon this court to determine kung meron nang unexplained wealth. I disagree with that. The ultimate decision rests upon this court.

At ang dala lang natin doon ay puro paratang. Wala man lang supporting document. What will the fiscal do? Dismiss the case outright. Yan naman po ang totoo. So that was our point to begin with and that is why we're saying fishing expedition ito kasi hindi mo man lang ma-pinpoint eh kung anong transaction yung sinasabi mong nag-amass ang vice president natin. Anong taon na nag-amass yung vice president natin ng ill-gotten wealth or unexplained wealth. At dahil doon, ngayon, we're asking for records spanning 20 years, both, I mean, BIR records, bank records, AMLAC records, which they already have, actually, from the Committee on Justice. Pero hindi natin mapin-point al-alin ba talaga dito. We cannot specify kung ano yung act, ano yung omission na ginawa niya na nakapag-amass siya ng unexplained wealth.

Talking about both parties, talking about the Fiscal or Prosecutor. Actually, binago na rin ngayon. Probable cause, with reasonable certainty, mako-convict. So, meaning, you go to the fiscal's office that you point out ano yung crime, sino yung gumawa ng crime, and yung preliminary evidence mo might not be enough to convict at that time, but enough to say na hindi lang ito marites. So if I go to the fiscal's office or ombudsman saying this senator has 150 million in his sal-en, 10 years ago it was 50 million, therefore it's ill-gotten wealth and then wala pa akong ibang dala except yung magkano sweldo dito, I doubt the fiscal will file that case. But if I tell the fiscal that he has two cars in his sal-en but eto, I see him using four, then give him the opportunity but I can subpoena the LTO. Na kanino ba yung plate number na yan? Baka namang nasa kapatid talaga niya, no? But the last set of questions, I'll just ask it once, no? So I think everyone understands naman the supina regarding the vice president, the issue was really the dates, and how specific or hindi.

Actually, two questions. The corporations, do you not have to pierce the corporate veil? Considering there's no allegations in the articles that these companies were used to amass ill-gotten wealth, in fact, I haven't read everything but so far sa binasa ko is hindi kumikita tong mga kumpanya na to because there's a Supreme Court decision that if it's a joint account may rights din yung isa and I don't even know if we informed all of those companies that we might subpoena their The record, so did we give them that opportunity? Isama ko na yung last question sa presiding officer and I won't follow it up, no? But, um, yeah.

The question was, because a law student asked me, Sir, bakit dinala yung box dito sa senate? Ba't nalang hindi nila binuksan sa house? So sinagot ko sa kanila, ano ba turo ng professor niyo? Sir, hindi naman nakalagay impeachment trial in cases of impeachment. So the House was actually empowered to open the box there. So I just want to know the position of both parties kasi nahihiwagaan ako sa box na iyon. Si Neil dinala dito, ibabalik sa inyo, then magsusupina tayo. But doon sa—grumaduate na yung nagtanong sa akin doon, they discussed it daw in class and they're— Their professor and their class, ang consensus is that the house could have opened it because the wording in the BIR case or the bank accounts? Bank accounts ata. Yung in cases of impeachment yung nakalagay dun sa bank accounts.

Secrecy of bank deposits.

Yes. So ang question niya, let me rephrase, is that, did you do that there? Kasi if you did that there, hawak niyo na ngayon.

Do you think nag-comply yung requirements dun sa companies and should we give notice to the companies? And secondly about bank account, could you have opened it already in the house? Yung BIR din ba?

Council for the panel of prosecutors may respond thereafter. Council for respondents. Thank you, Your Honor. And we would like to thank Senator Judge Allen for his

If Your Honor please, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies when we are determining liability of the company or corporation involved. In this particular case, that doctrine has no application at all. We are asking for those records to be produced so that we can determine the extent of participation of the Vice President. As she herself had admitted those business interests in her SALN, kaya po namin hinihingi po iyon. Kaya sa tingin po namin ay wala pong aplikasyon ang piercing the corporate veil. Second, as far as opening the box is concerned, while it is true that under Republic Act 1405 there's no qualification that impeachment trial lang po ang pwede, as I understand it, it was the better judgment of the committee, out of sheer discretion and prudence, not to, because at that time we were already being bombarded with petitions left and right seeking to restrain our proceedings, and we felt that it would be more prudent to bring the matter to this honorable Court. Thank you, Your Honor.

Counsel for the respondent.

On the first point, Your Honors, on piercing of the corporate veil, para sa amin, pwede lang naman under jurisprudence mag-pierce ng corporate bail. Ibig sabihin kasi separate and distinct personality ng mga korporasyon, you can pierce that bail if there's an allegation of fraud. And in this case, wala naman pong allegation ng fraud. Pangalawa, kung totoo po na talagang ang hinahanap lang po ng kinakagalang-galang na prosecution ay tungkol dun sa divestment issue, Then they will not need the tax records, the bank records, or even the AMLOC records of these companies because all they need would be the GIS. The general information sheet would show you exactly the extent of the interest of the stockholders, hindi po ba? Pangalawa, pagdating naman po dun sa what's our position, pagdating sa bank secrecy and the exception on cases of impeachment. Sa aming pananaw, at the committee level, meaning Committee on Justice,

Pagdating sa preliminary investigation, hindi pa po applicable yung mga exceptions under the Bank Secrecy Act and there has to be a pending case before such bank documents are in fact subpoenaed. That is our position, Your Honors.

Thank you, Councils, for the parties. Chair will now make a ruling, but prior to that ruling, Chair would like to inquire very, very briefly from the Councils. First, for the Council for Respondent, may the Court know when the Respondent was married to her spouse, and what is the property regime governing their marriage?

Your Honor, I believe they were married, but let me just... Checked the facts just to be sure, but I think it was 2007.

2007, Your Honor, can I get back to you on the specific date for that? The

date

would not

be necessary because 2007 would mean they would be covered under the Family Code. So may the Chair ask, what is the property regime governing their marriage?

As far as I know, there are no property regime arrangements or prenup. That's why, Your Honor, I would assume it would be the default.

The absolute

community

of property.

Thank you, Council. Chair will now make its ruling.

The Impeachment Court will now resolve the Prosecution's renewed request for the issuance of subpoena dos estecum dated July 6, 2026. You may seat, Councils.

Directed to the concerned banking institutions and anti-money laundering Council. The Court begins with the standards governing the issuance of subpoena dos estecum. These are set forth in Section 3,

Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. which provides among others that in the case of a subpoena du sistecum, it shall contain a reasonable description of the books, documents, or things demanded which must appear to the court as prima facie relevant. Settled jurisprudence has affirmed and clarified these requirements in the 2021 case of Republic v. Sandigan Bayan dated 2015-21 where the Supreme Court stated, quote, a subpoena du sistecum may be issued if the tests of relevancy and definiteness are satisfied. The Court must ensure that, number one, the books, documents, or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy, the test of relevancy, and number two, such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified, the test of definiteness. In the case of BSB Group Inc. v. GOJ, year number 168644, The Court stated that evidence is relevant when it bears such a direct relation to the fact and issue as to induce a belief in its existence or non-existence and when it relates to a collateral fact from which the existence or non-existence of the principal fact may logically be inferred. These requirements are intended to ensure that the subpoena is not used, as mentioned earlier and discussed earlier, as a tool For a fishing expedition as held in Apostol v. Lubingan Rafael, GR No. 260640, dated October 1, 2025. We are also aware of the ruling of the Supreme Court, NHC-Libanau v. Philippine National Oil Company, GR No. L13463, A general inquisitorial examination of all the books, papers, and documents of an adversary, conducted with a view to ascertain whether something of value may or may not show up, will not be enforced. However, after a careful examination of the records requested, the Court finds that the requested documents meet the requirements set forth above. They are reasonably described, readily identifiable, prima facie relevant, and material to the allegations under Article 2. This is not the first time that bank records have been examined by an impeachment trial. During the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Corona, the Senate Citizens and Impeachment Court granted the prosecution's request for the production of bank records. In granting that request, the Court cited Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405, which expressly recognizes cases of impeachment as an exception to the confidentiality of bank deposits and the rights to privacy of depositors. As to the requested period from 2007 to 2021, the defense's objection is overruled. The respondent's invocation of what they referred to as offenses in term, quote-unquote, in their memorandum Doctrine in Duterte v. H.O.R. does not avail. First, the documents requested under the subpoena do sistecom will not be used to allege additional independent impeachable offenses. The court will not allow this in adherence to the doctrine laid down in Duterte v. H.O.R. as this will violate the respondent's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her and her rights to due process at every stage of the proceedings. Rather, The Court will only allow these records to be used to establish a factual baseline against which the respondent's assets, financial transactions, and business interests during her present term may be assessed.

Establishing such a factual baseline is recognized in settled jurisprudence involving allegations that a public officer's wealth is manifestly disproportionate to the lawful income and financial capacity of the officer and the officer's spouse. As held by the Supreme Court in Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada Jr., dated 8 June 2005, In determining whether the properties acquired were manifestly out of proportion to the lawful income of the spouses, necessarily requires comparing their value with the spouses' salaries, benefits, other lawful income, and revenues from legitimately acquired properties or businesses. Further, In the case of Ombudsman V. Bernardo , Respondent's beginning net worth must be considered for purposes of determining whether his disposable income was more than sufficient to justify his property acquisitions and foreign travels for the covered period, and whether he possesses the financial capability to acquire or purchase properties as reported in his SAL-N.

Such net worth of the respondent as declared in the statement filed by him or her from the first day of his employment with the government shall be considered as his true net worth of such date for purposes of determining his capacity for future property acquisitions during his tenure as a public officer. Any unexplained increase in his net worth thereafter may fall within the ambit of the presumption provided for in Republic Act No. 1379. The production, therefore, of the records from 2007 to 2021 is authorized strictly for that limited purpose only. Their admissibility and evidentiary use shall remain subject to the prosecution establishing their connection to the alleged unexplained wealth during the respondent's present term in relation only to Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment. Now, with regard to the bank records held separately by Attorney Manassas Carpio and Joint Chief Carpio, and jointly by him and the respondent. The defense's objection is likewise overruled. The respondent's reliance on Republic v. Eugenio is unavailing. That case involved only an ordinary civil inquiry into spousal assets that were not statutorily aggregated. On the other hand, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 requires public officials to disclose their assets, including that of their spouses. Their financial interests are therefore statutorily intertwined for purposes of disclosure. Respondent likewise insists on the separate legal personality and distinct right to privacy of attorney Carpio, but this is likewise untenable. Article 75 of the Family Code explicitly provides, which is why the Presiding Officer earlier asked the property regime governing them, in the absence of a marriage settlement or when the regime agreed upon is void. The system of absolute community of properties established in this Code shall govern. Under this regime, Article 91 dictates that community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of marriage or acquired thereafter. Furthermore, the Family Code imposes a strict statutory presumption under Article 93 which mandates that property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community unless it is proved that it is one of those excluded therefrom. The law is clear on the matter. The legal necessity of examining the financial records of Atty. Carpio is firmly cemented by the default property regime of absolute community of property governing his marriage to the respondent. Absent any proof of a different property regime governing their marriage, any funds deposited in the bank accounts of Atty. Carpio are legally presumed to form a single, indivisible mass of community property jointly owned with the respondent vice president. Because Philippine civil law legally merges their assets, properties, and income into a single absolute community, it is a legal and mathematical impossibility to determine the respondent's true net worth or lawful income without examining the bank accounts of her husband. Investigating Mr. Carpio's financial records is therefore not an unwarranted intrusion into a third party's privacy, but an absolute legal prerequisite in determining the actual aggregated wealth of the respondent. The defense likewise invokes the Data Privacy Act, classifying the records as sensitive personal information, requiring strict scrutiny, citing Zoleta v. Ombudsman. The Court, however, in Zoleta did not really use the phrase strict scrutiny but said strict adherence to the Data Privacy Act. Accordingly, Section 16 of the Data Privacy Act expressly states that the right to privacy does not apply When personal information is needed pursuant to a subpoena. Furthermore, Rule 5, Section 22 of the DPA, Data Privacy Act Implementing Rules, expressly permits the processing of sensitive information, personal information, when provided to government or public authority pursuant to a constitutional or statutory mandate, and when necessary for the protection of lawful rights, interests, and court proceedings. Now as to the 21 listed corporate entities and partnership. The requests are granted with respect only to 19 corporate entities and partnership. The respondent's connection to these entities is prima facie shown by the General Information Sheets in the Articles of Partnership which have been pre-marked in evidence and by her admitted SAL-Ns from 2022 to 2025. The request, therefore, is not considered as a fishing expedition and subpoenas may issue For their peso-denominated accounts strictly only in relation to Article 2. However, the requests directed to banking institutions concerning JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong Philippines Corporation are denied. Their general information sheets do not identify the respondent or her spouse as shareholders, and the prosecution at this time failed to show either a direct business interest Or a clear and convincing basis to disregard their separate juridical personalities. As held in Pantranco Employees Association v. NLRC, GR 170689, and Lanuza v. BF Corporation, GR 174938, the corporate veil may not be pierced on mere suspicion or speculation. Misuse of the corporation as an alter ego, conduit, or instrument of fraud must be clearly established. Absent such proof, these entities cannot be subjected.

As to the request for subpoena against the partnership of Carpio Lawyers, the same is granted with the following reservation in adherence to Subido v. Pagantes or Tessa Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. Court of Appeals

The Chair notes the practical reality that an examination of a law firm's bank accounts may incidentally disclose sensitive information relating to its clients and legal engagements. The Court acknowledges that the partnership and or the clients of Carpe lawyers may seek appropriate remedies and to challenge compliance with applicable legal requirements. Particularly in light of the potential legal implications including concerns relating to attorney-client privilege which may also be raised during the trial proper. Furthermore, the court must draw a legal firm line regarding foreign currency deposits. Foreign currency deposits are governed by Republic Act No. 6426, particularly Section 8, which recognizes only one exception to confidentiality, the written permission of the depositor. This is also guided by the President arising from the 2012 Corona Impeachment Trial. On February 19, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order in PS Bank v. Senate Impeachment Court and joining the Senate from opening the Chief Justice's Corona dollar accounts in the absence of a written waiver of the depositor. Accordingly, Insofar as the request covers foreign currency deposits of the respondent, her spouse, separately or jointly, as well as the corporation and partnership, it is denied. Such accounts shall be excluded unless and until written consent of the respective depositors is produced. The Court now turns to the records held by the

AMLC or Anti-Money Laundering

Council.

As to the requests directed to the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the same are granted with respect to the 19 To the respondent, her spouse and the 19 entities and one partnership for which a prima facie connection has been shown through the pre-marked general information sheets, articles of partnership, and the respondent's admitted silence. However, the requests as to JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong-Pikimong Philippines Corporation are denied. For failure at this stage to establish a prima facie link, the respondent of her spouse and said entities or any sufficient basis to disregard their separate juridical personalities as previously stated. The defense vigorously argues that AMLC is absolutely shielded from this Court's compulsory process by the confidentiality provisions of Section 80 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act as amended and warrants that compliance would expose AMLC officers to criminal sanctions for breach of confidentiality. The Court, however, finds this argument unavailing. Section 8A regulates unauthorized and arbitrary disclosures by AMLAC personnel. It does not and constitutionally cannot nullify the lawful subpoena powers of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court where compliance with the lawful constitutional subpoena is a justifying circumstance that, if at all, would extinguish any penal liability under Article 11, Paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code for any person acting in obedience to an order issued by superior or some lawful purpose. In the landmark case of Republic v. Sandigan Bayan, GR 2322724, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the AMLC's attempt to quash the subpoena d'Usistecum, ruling verbatim, The Anti-Money Laundering Council is not merely a repository of reports and information on covert and suspicious transactions. It was created precisely to investigate and institute

Charges against those suspected to commit money laundering activities. The criminal prosecution of such activities would be unduly hampered if we were to prohibit it from disclosing such information. For the Anti-Money Laundering Council to refuse disclosing the information required of it would be to go against its very function under the law. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in Sabio v. Gordon

By parity, explain that statutory provisions on confidentiality and exemptions from inquiry cannot be invoked to deny access to information by Congress in aid of legislation. It is therefore the position of this Court that, if the Sandigan Bayan pursuant to its Sabino powers cannot be denied AMLC records, as well as the legislature in aid of legislation, it most certainly cannot be denied to the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court. The defense also vehemently objects to the production of AMLC documents by pointing out to the agency's own printed footnotes,

which restrict the reports for intelligence purposes only, and explicitly state they are not to be used as evidence in any formal proceedings. The court, however, overrules

this objection.

The admissibility and evidentiary weight of documents in an impeachment trial are determined by the Constitution, the rules of court, and the judgment of the impeachment court, not by unilateral disclaimers printed by an executive agency on its letterhead. An administrative footnote or internal intelligence-sharing protocol cannot rise to the level of a constitutional or statutory exclusionary rule. While the MLC's internal protocols are validly designed to prevent premature leaks during ongoing investigations, they cannot legally operate to tie the hands of the impeachment court once the documents are lawfully subpoenaed. Because the requested suspicious transaction reports and covered transaction reports satisfy the threshold of prima facie relevance in tracing the alleged accumulation of unexplained wealth under Article II, they shall be produced.

The defense further invokes the five-year record retention period under the AMLA regulations.

The five-year period is a minimum mandatory retention requirement imposed on covered institutions. It is not an absolute prohibition against keeping or producing all the records. Accordingly, let AMLC invoke this limitation in its return, which this Court shall take into account and inform the parties thereon accordingly.

As for the partnership of Carpe Lawyers, Section 1 of Republic Act No. 10365 amending Section 387 of Republic Act No. 9160 treats as covered persons those including lawyers who manage client money or assets, manage bank savings and securities accounts, organize contributions for companies, or create, operate, or manage judicial persons or arrangements. Section 2C of AMLC Regulatory Actions B No. 1, Series of 2018, adopted on May 10, 2018, and filed on June 13, 2018, expressly reiterates this activity-based rule. The Court recognizes the statutory exception for lawyers acting as independent legal professionals, where the information concerns their clients or disclosure would compromise client confidences or the attorney-client relationship. Absent any showing, however, That the particular record contained such information or would compromise a protected confidence, the exception cannot be invoked merely because the entity concerned is a law partnership. It protects client confidences. It does not confer a blanket immunity upon every financial record bearing the law firm's name. The request for nations of subpoenas for the identified financial records therefore pertaining to carpe lawyers is granted. Subject to the remedies in law, Endored their legal right to assert a specific claim of privilege over a particular document at the proper time. No generalized blanket invocation of attorney-client privilege should exclude compliance at this time. Therefore, to summarize, the court rules as follows. The request for subpoenas directed to the concerned banking institutions covering the accounts of respondent, attorney Manassas Carpio, separately or jointly, the partnership of Carpio lawyers and the 19 listed corporate entities is granted. The banks are ordered to submit to the Clerk of Court the documents on July 30, 2026 at 9 AM with the attendance of parties and councils. The request insofar as it seeks the records pertaining to JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong-Pikimong Philippines Corporation is denied for failing to establish prima facie relevance. The subpoenas granted shall apply only to peso-denominated accounts relevant to Article 2. Foreign currency deposits are excluded absent the written consent of the respective depositors. The subpoena directed to the Anti-Money laundering council covering respondent Atty. Manassas Carpio separately and jointly with the respondent, the partnership of Carpio and lawyers, and the 19 listed corporations and entities is granted. The request insofar as it seeks records pertaining to JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong-Pikimong Philippines Corporation is denied. For failing to establish prima facie relevance.

Finally, the Court is cognizant of the Supreme Court ruling in Almonte v. Vasquez, GR 95367, where it stated that a government privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect to State secrets, and it is not amiss to state that even matters of national security have been inquired into inappropriate in-camera proceedings by the Court. Therefore, The Court ex abundante ad cautela or out of an abundance of caution hereby directs, in order to prevent the unwarranted exposure of sensitive AMLC methodologies and information, to submit the records strictly in camera The parties are directed to be represented by council on the aforementioned time and date for the proper inspection, comparison, photocopying, and or marking of these documents as the case may be. So ordered.

Moving now on...

The Impeachment Court will now resolve the Prosecution's request for the issuance of subpoena dated July 6, 2026, directed to the Commission on Internal Revenue. At the outset, the Presiding Officer reiterates and adopts by reference the Court's citation of applicable rules regarding the issuance of subpoena due sa STECOM which forms an integral part of this Order. The foregoing standards are deemed reproduced and shall govern the Court's disposition of the present subpoena requests.

After examining the records sought, the Court finds that the requested documents meet the requirements set forth. They are reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant and material to the allegations under Article 2. However, the Court, similarly, requests insofar as it seeks the records of JTC Group of Companies, Philippines Inc., and Pikimong-Pikimong Philippines Corporation. The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie nexus between these entities to either the respondent or

to her spouse. The records sought therefore do not at this time satisfy the requirement of prima facie relevance under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also resolves the respondent's objection to the requested period from 2007 to 2021. They anchored their opposition on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Duterte v. House that the basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer.

The argument, as stated earlier, fails because first, the documents requested under the subpoenaed dosis tecum will not be used to allege additional impeachable offenses. This Court will not allow it. For the same reasons discussed in the Court's earlier order, consistent with the same jurisprudence which are hereby adopted by reference, The Court likewise holds that the requested records are sought to establish respondents' financial baseline and capacity only, not to inquire into or prosecute alleged impeachable acts occurring outside the present articles of impeachment. Accordingly, these records are required to establish a factual baseline against which the respondents' assets, financial transactions, and business interests during her present term may be assessed. We are also not without precedent. During the Corona Impeachment Trial, DeSalle Enns, prior to his appointment as Chief Justice in 2010, were presented on the January 18, 2012 hearing of the Court. Likewise, evidence and testimony concerning properties and transactions before his appointment as Associate Justice were presented before the Court on March 13, 2012.

Therefore, the production of records from 2007 to 2021 is therefore allowed and authorized strictly for purposes of establishing a comparative baseline only. They shall not be used as proof of another independent impeachable offense. Their admissibility and evidentiary use shall remain subject to the prosecution establishing their connection to the alleged unexplained wealth during the respondent's present term. The defense's invocation of the Raise of the Privacy Act is likewise unavailing. As previously stated, Section 16B of that law expressly states that the right to privacy does not apply when personal information is needed pursuant to a subpoena. Furthermore, Rule 5, Section 22F of its Implementing Rules expressly permits the processing of sensitive personal information provided to government public authority pursuant to a constitutional or statutory mandate and when necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests and court proceedings. The court is likewise unconvinced by respondents' argument that the issuance of the subpoena will usurp the authority of the BAR under Section 5 of the NIRC. This court is not determining the tax deficiencies or civil liabilities which remain within the province of the BAR. It is exercising its constitutional mandate to determine public accountability under the articles of impeachment. Neither does dependency of a BAR audit suspend or limit the Senate's exclusive jurisdiction to try impeachment cases. The Respondent invoked Section 270 of the National Internal Revenue Code to prevent the production of the requested records. The objection is overruled in part. The Supreme Court expressly ruled in DEPAD v. Spouses Olivan, GR 168771 that Section 270 of the NIRC obviously does not address the confidentiality of ITRs. It merely penalizes the unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information, except as otherwise provided for by law. It does not bar the production of documents. However, the respondent correctly invokes Section 71 and other provisions of the NIRC which recognizes only three instances in which a taxpayer's records may be opened for inspection. Number one, upon order of the President or authorization of the President. Number two, upon the request of a foreign tax authority with the approval of the President. Or number three, upon the taxpayer's waiver. Nevertheless, The existence of these statutory limitations does not at this stage preclude the issuance of the requested subpoena. The issuance of subpoena is merely a preliminary procedural step and does not by itself authorize the disclosure, inspection, or admission of the requested tax records into evidence. In fact, this issuance is the order that shall set, if at all, things in motion. Upon service, the BIR Commissioner may refuse compliance or comply by invoking any of the exceptions under the NIRC as previously mentioned. Without a satisfactory showing of faithful compliance with any of the enumerated exceptions, this Court shall not receive any subpoenaed records from the BIR, similar to what was done when the sealed box ordered by this Court to be returned to them. There is also a precedent during the 2012 corona impeachment trial. The Senate issued the subpoena and thereafter awaited the return of the BAR Commissioner. The requested records were produced only after the requisite presidential authorization had been obtained, one of the recognized exceptions under Section 71 of the NIRC. The respondent, however, is not without recourse nor remedy. In the event the requested tax records are lawfully produced pursuant to any of the statutory exceptions, The Respondent may, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, raise any and all objections concerning their relevance, materiality, authenticity, admissibility, and other evidentiary infirmities. The issuance of subpoena should not be construed as a ruling on the admissibility of the documents ultimately produced. On this basis, the subpoena shall therefore be issued and we shall await the return of the BIR Commissioner, at which time the Court shall take such action as may be deemed necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the request for nations of subpoena directed to Commissioner Carlito Martin R. Mendoza of the BIR is hereby granted. The request insofar as it seeks the records pertaining to JTC Group of Companies Inc. and Pikimong-Pikimong Philippines Corporation is hereby denied for failure to satisfy the requirement of prima facie evidence. The Commissioner is directed to make the appropriate return to this Court in accordance with the law On July 30, 2026 at 9 AM before the Clerk of Court, the Court shall await the return before taking any further action as may be warranted. The parties are likewise directed to be represented by Council on the aforementioned time and date for inspection, comparison, photocopying, and or marking as the case may be. So ordered.

Senator Judge Alan Cayetano is recognized. Thank you for that

exhaustive ruling, Mr. Presiding Officer. I won't ask you to repeat it.

Because you explained both in the caucus and here that there are only two motions. There are parts, I'm talking about myself first, but I think some feel the same way. There are some parts that we agree, some parts we disagree. For example, to subpoena the certain records between 2022 to 2026. In my case, I agree with the know your client. Opening balance just for reference so that you have a starting point. So may I suggest that instead of objecting, I don't know if I'm alone or with others, I

will not manifest anymore but may I submit in writing which parts of the ruling I disagree and if anyone wants to either manifest or submit in writing. But I do have one question to the So you narrated everything. In the page 2 of the request for subpoena for

004,

nakalagay all records filed with, submitted to, or maintained by the BR for taxable year 207 to 25, including but not limited to. So sinabi 1, 2, 3. 1 and 2, pero not limited to. The other one, 4, page 4 of the request number 004-2026. Sorry, that's the case number. So the other one is to the, this one's to the anti-money laundering. Nakalagay po sa page 4 and all other relevant documents. So I just like to ask, was your narration exclusive? Because you did say that It's specific enough, but I don't think specific yung all other relevant. The test of if it's definite is that wala nang iisipin yung pinadalan mo ng supina. So kung anong nirerate, yun ang kukunin.

That is a common practice perhaps used by lawyers, but the understanding of the court, and let this be part of the ruling of the court, is that only the documents specifically mentioned Thank you for that. will not include that catch-all phrase because I doubt too if the banks, the BIL, AMLC, would be able to supply in such others unless it was specified. So

with the permission of the court, I'll submit my— Permission

granted and any other senator-judge who wish to submit their written explanation in regard to the twin orders may do so.

Senator Judge Marcos and Legarda are both raising their hands so the same applies to them.

Submit.

Senator Judges Marcos, Legarda, and Villar Camille. Are manifesting that they will be submitting their manifestations in regard to the twin rulings of the court and the same is allowed and will be made part of the records.

For the information of the court, yes, Senator Judge Pia Cayetano is recognized. What is your pleasure, ma'am?

Mr. Presiding Officer, I'll just make a short manifestation because The

lady may proceed.

Alan's written submission might be so long, it might just be easier for me to make my own manifestation.

Para tumawa naman kayo guys, sobrang seryoso natin. But it is a serious topic. Very simply, Mr. President, personally, on the issue of the dates for the submission of the, what was it, 2007? 2007 to 2026. And the term of the vice president in question is 2022 to 2026. My humble position is, and I'm cognizant of the case that was cited by the prosecution, I also found my own research, the presiding officer used it in the justification of the decision, says that you

You go back to set that baseline. I understand that. Madali naman siyang intindihan. Ang sakin lang naman, in the interest also of considering the rights of the person under trial, we could have considered starting at 2022 and if there's more than, kung doon pa lang, it already shows that unexplained from 2022 to 2026, there may be no reason to go back and at least respect that.

Nota rin

taken

under Judge P. Aquetano.

Chair would now like to take up some administrative matters. We are in receipt of a motion to set conference for the transfer of markings and comparison of video exhibits filed by the prosecution. Since this was received only last Friday, the court was not able to act on it on their requested dates. Court therefore sets this to July 21, tomorrow at 9 am. Due notice is given to both parties for this purpose. Likewise, the Court is

in receipt, the Presiding Officer rather, as well as the Senate President, of a letter of manifestation signed by Senator Judge Mark Coleta, citing a rule in the Arab Impeachment Trial and wanting his vote to be considered. Chair, the Presiding Officer in this Court will not act on it at this time, but instead, since we will be resuming next week, will be referring this matter to the Senate as a legislative body, given that it's the Senate that will be amending the rules, to allow participation through a vote because apparently, as pointed out by Senator Judge Mark Coleta, during the Estrada impeachment trial, a rule was adopted, which we are confirming, that allows the Senate President to provide a mechanism by which a Senator who cannot vote Under any unavoidable circumstances to cast this vote on any matter. But since this impinges upon the rules of the impeachment court, this matter should properly be taken up by the Senate as a legislative body.

And whatever decision the Senate will have as a legislative body, the court shall implement it. But let it be placed on record that personally,

Once we convene the Senate as a legislative body, I am inclined to agree with the suggestion of Senator Mark Coleta for as long as there is no suspension, according to him. Yes,

Senator Judge

Gaetano.

I will not object to that at this point in time. Just as an additional information, I think Senator Estrada elevated to the Supreme Court the denial of the Sandigan Bayan to allow him to attend. But may you also refer my previous

As a court, we can also communicate whether it's with the Sandigan Bayan. But if you're going to say it's going to be through the rules, that's not in conflict. But maybe we can take it up whether in caucus once the Senate convenes.

The point of Senator Judge Allen is well taken. We shall do so at the appropriate time. Now, on other matter, Senator Judge Padilla is recognized. What is your pleasure, sir?

Mahal na tagapamahalang hukom, patungkol po dun sa nangyaring ruling, nais ko lang po sanang magmanipesto.

The gentleman may proceed.

Ginong tagapangulo

at mga kasama, matagal ko na pong isinusulong ang Freedom of Information dahil ito po ay bumagsak sa aking komite. Ito po ay tunay na kailangan natin. Sa pagkat dito po talaga natin mapapatunayan yung sinasabi nating public trust. Pero meron din po kasing napakahalaga yung tinatawag na equal protection of the laws.

Sangayon po sa Artikulo 3, Section 1 ng ating Constitution, Bill of Rights, ang nagsasabing hindi dapat alisan ng buhay, kalayaan o ari-arian ang sinamang tao nang hindi

Miriam Santiago, Dito mismo.

Siya po ay isang huwes at ginagalang na profesora ng batas. Ang sabi niya, Constitutional analysis is a technical field. Ang pagsusuri sa konstitusyon ay hindi isang sining. Isa itong technical na larangan. Hindi po dapat ito iniinterpret ng basta-basta o kailangan may due process. Nung una ko pong narinig kanina na ipaliwanag po ng ating Senator Judge Alan Peter Caetano, tinanong sa proseksyon kung ganito rin ba ang ginawa nila nung may impeachment kay Presidente Bongbong Marcos.

Napakalinaw po na ang sagot nila ay hindi naman sila nagtanong, hindi sila nagsaliksik. Kumparaanong ginagawa nila ngayon sa pangalawang Pangulo? Ang akin po lamang, makatarungan ba na hindi parehas ang trato natin dito? Dapat sana parehas eh. Kaya po ang hinihiling ko sa atin, total naman lahat namang kayo ay sumang-ayon na sa Freedom of Information Bill ko,

House of Representatives.

Bakit kung ganito ang pamantayan natin, hindi buksan na natin lahat ng bank records natin? Lahat na! Tayong lahat ay buksan na natin lahat para mapakita sa taong bayan na wala tayong kinikilingan dito.

Ito ay oras na para samantalahin natin ang pagkakataong ito na ipasayang FOI. Kasi kung ganito,

For the record,

there is a pending bill as well requiring all public officials filing a SAL-N. To execute a waiver in favor of relevant government agencies together with their salen on top and in addition of the FOI bill filed by the Honorable Padilla, na tinatalakay din po natin sa ngayon.

Before proceeding

on one more matter, may I inquire from the lead prosecutor or someone from the panel of prosecutors who their intended witnesses will be for tomorrow and Tuesday?

Tomorrow and Wednesday, forgive me.

Your Honor, our intended witness for tomorrow is Atty. Melvin Matibag, the NBI Director. And for Wednesday, Your Honor, it will be Marivic Pareja of the Legislative Archive Office of the House of Representatives, Your Honor.

And on Wednesday, the bank officials?

In addition, Your Honor, but considering that we only have Tuesday and Wednesday for trial, But after Marivic-Pareja, we will also be presenting the two land bank officials, Your Honor.

Yes, because we issued a subpoena ad testificandum against these two bank officials to attend tomorrow and Wednesday.

Yes, Your Honor.

So for the information of the two bank officials, if they are listening, they may simply attend the Wednesday trial. Not the trial tomorrow, although the subpoena indicates tomorrow and Wednesday. Would that be okay, counsel? Yes, Your Honor. So,

Atty. Melvin Matibag tomorrow, and if at all, Ms. Marivic Pareja and Ms. Marivic Pareja, the two bank officials, on Wednesday.

Counsel for the respondent, ma'am.

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

What is your pleasure, ma'am?

May I be recognized, Your Honor?

Yes, ma'am. This is regarding what matter, ma'am?

Just two administrative matters, Your Honor. The first one is with respect to the...

motion to set conference for the transfer of marking and comparison of video exhibits. We would also like to request that the respondent be allowed to also mark additional documents at the appointed time tomorrow. In effect, we're asking for the same latitude. In fact, some of the documents that we intend to mark tomorrow would be also our copies of some of the listed items in this motion, Your Honor.

Of course. That motion orally made by counsel for respondent is hereby granted. The respondent, in similar fashion to the prosecution, may also mark, or change the markings, or mark any pieces of evidence they wish to do so in order to facilitate the trial. So ordered.

Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. And just to place on record, the additional marking of evidence and whatever transfer of markings that the prosecution will do tomorrow is without prejudice to Section 3, Administrative Matter No. 2026-001 of this Impeachment Court, with respect to the guidelines for the conduct of the pre-trial conference, which explicitly states that the marking is without prejudice to any questions on admissibility, relevance, etc., Your Honor.

That is the understanding, counsel. Yes. And the second matter concerns that?

Second matter, Your Honor, with respect to the earlier ruling given by this Court on the two requests for subpoena, Your Honor, defense requests for a certified true copy of that ruling, Your Honor. Thank you.

The Chair will address that. It will be included in the Journal. However, the Journal will have to await the manifestations to be submitted by any Senator-Judge who may agree or disagree with the ruling. So, we might not be able to approve the Journal tomorrow, although we will do as best as we can. But as soon as the Journal is approved, we shall make it available. The TSN can be made available perhaps by tomorrow.

Thank you, Your Honor. That's all, Your Honor.

Your Honor, may I make a short manifestation with regards to the order of presentation, Your Honor, earlier mentioned by the prosecution?

Of witnesses?

Yes, Your Honor.

Subject to the limitation mentioned by Senator Judge Allen the other week, if you remember? Yes,

Your Honor,

I understand.

The lady may proceed. We

are maintaining the presentation of NBI Director tomorrow. That is Tuesday, July 21. And then following the NBI Director, Your Honor, will be the two Land Bank Managers in the person of Violeta San Constantino of Shaw Branch Manager and Danita Camposano of DepEd Branch Manager. As to the presentation of the Legislative Archive Officer, we will be determining the appropriate timeline to present her, Your Honor.

So the court recalls or withdraws the earlier statement that the two bank officials may appear on Wednesday. The subpoena stands, therefore, requiring their appearance to respond to the subpoena at testificandum tomorrow, July 21 and July 22.

We confirm, Your Honor.

So noted. Any

other matters that any of the parties wish to raise?

There being none, since

we did not have a break, Trial is hereby adjourned until July 21, Tuesday at

2pm.