In the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Senate impeachment court is deliberating on subpoena requests for financial records, applying legal standards that require subpoenas to be relevant and material to the charges, while preventing 'fishing expeditions' that seek excessive information without clear connection to the allegations. The court must balance public accountability with confidentiality protections, considering constitutional provisions and precedents like Stonehill v. United States regarding due process and evidence admissibility.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
LIVE: Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial Day 8 | Philippine Senate Trial LIVE Updates
Added:everyone and we're equal your situation if there's an engineer here or they talk about medical principles I have to either study and medical etc briefing allow me to press briefing room and help educate my colleagues integrity justices or judges like the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals is being heard because the judges are being threatened to defend ourselves.
>> You give them time defend.
>> So we cannot take the impeachment out of context.
We consider Senator Mare and Senator weaponization problem with NBI double forum. Mr. presiding over I mentioned two colleagues I didn't accuse them this is not the right place this just because we already was created for the court for the for the vice president only this should be her time this should be and this I wasn't going to bring that up, but then it was all over the news or he was going to stand up before Senator sayistered 5 minutes.
So I'll take the 5 minutes also follow the rules.
The gentleman may proceed.
I'm just saying last week because every minute, every hour or from the defense or from the prosecution, the case of the president, vice president and to decide injustice.
It's the prosecution's job to try to prosecute and it's the defense job to convince us. Our job is to try and when you decide you acquit or you convict. Why is that important? These are legal terms to clear the prosecutor. Thank you, Mr. Senate President. Thank you, Senator Alan. His remarks are noted. Senator Judge Senator Judge Senator 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. I do not have four years. The remarks of the gentleman are noted 29 years.
>> Earlier Senator Judge Allen asked to be recognized. Are you yielding in favor of um Senator Judge >> be referred to the Senate property >> and thereafter Senator Judge the property of Senator Senator Judge Senator I'm happy I finally heard Senator Judge Irwin Tulfo is concerned about or injustice to vice president um regarding the waste of time Senator, it is useless to argue a legal point with a non lawyer due process. When uh Senator Kleta brought up here, Senator stood up here many times for four years school.
So let me give my own interpretation.
the impeachment court is formed, lawyers and non- lawyers and we 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 etcal simply.
So allow mention that to the people and my colleague here integrity of the court and the justices or judges is always relevant. So if the Supreme Court of Tax Appeals and the judges are being threatened officer earlier you give them time So we cannot take the impeachment out of context control team.
We consider Senator Maretta and Senator Senator supposedly blue ribbon committee weaponized. So Mr. President in the impeachment court ultimately impeachment after we brought the problem with NBI. They doubled down task force through the Senate. I mentioned two colleagues I didn't just like vice president the court allowed just manifestation but it was resolved for the matter be referred as a legislative body take up your accusations uh uh here today I I think the secretary Vince I wasn't going to bring that up.
It was all over the news or he snapped the ombbudsman. I was going to support Senator rules of court 5 minutes senator the rules of the senate whenever you don't mind if anything happens whe judge lastly privilege it's useless Now, if we're going to argue today rather than our job to prosecute with a simple manifestation from Senator, it's our job to try and decide job to convince us to try. We we can have a focus. We can talk about it. And when you decide before you convict legal terms judge to clear or to prosecute youing officer Mr. Thank you. You may proceed.
His remarks are noted. Senator Judge Sto thereafter senator judge Padilia thereafter the presiding officer shall make a ruling.
>> You may proceed president that refers to um Thank you, Mr. President. the rulings on evidence in the impeachment trial. It does not refer to privilege of law.
>> Therefore, I have the supatory nature of the rules of court as well as the Senate rules refer to pertaining to be referred to the Senate >> and no other Mr. President but we will act at the proper time. Thank you. Your remarks are noted Senator Judge.
may proceed sir last week but let us abuse the liberality of this uh Mr. President with the permission of um Senator Judge Tulfo will make a ruling um because I believe it is also his position not to prolong this matter in discussing matters not pertaining to the articles of impeachment that we are hearing and trying before the impeachment court. um chair rules that um the manifestation of Senator Judge um shall remain in the records of the president who the president mentioned by Senator Judge Pangalan where the speech of um former senator the late former senator was not expuned for the record but referred to the Senate Senate rather as a legislative body where it may be taken up. I ask the indulgence of the parties to this case within hearing distance of my colleagues.
Senator Judge and that I think is the proper judge.
What is your pleasure sir? Ventilate, discuss, look into and if necessary investigate. the allegations and their accusations against senator judges in their capacity likewise as um senators these matters be referred to what is the pleasure of senator judge manifest I correct myself it was time not the impeachment trial >> and since I agree with the ruling I will not anymore rule that made a manifard case that was supposedly being prepared >> the senate president thereafter senator was raised in the impeachment court by the impeachment presiding officer.
Hopefully we can move on after the manifestations of this.
>> Let me thank of the president to refer the manifestations as well as allowed senate then senator to make his manifestation eventually a legislate.
So we share Yes, we move we call for the previous question later on in the point of order in one week's time.
Rule six with the indulgence of our colleagues. The last partitions of the rules of the Senate and the revised rules of the apply whenever applicable in the rules of the Senate.
The senator feels threatened or anything and collective privilege. We didn't do that impeachment. If we're going to argue today rather than ask them about due process with a simple manifestation from Senator registered mail officer. Can we start?
Thank you, sir. We can have nothing. You want to debate that um with the permission of um proceeding now to the matter referring it to the Senate as a legislative body. Um Senator without expuning it from the record. Let it remain there. You may proceed, sir.
We will now proceed to the matter and we now resume consideration of the prosecution's requests for the issuance of subpenas do number one for the banks and the anti-moneyaundering 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 congos but also as well as the senate rules directly by the presiding officer with members to evidence chair will now understand um senator in the spirit of liberality we will allow that that's precisely why we did not object he >> senator judge Allen or senator judge villain judgeity >> no one's raising the so I don't know when the chair will make a ruling you may proceed because I believe it is also his position thereafter senator judge this matter in discussing collateral Sir, thank you Mr. pertaining to the articles of impeachment that we are hearing and trying for impeachment to uh um chair the manifestation of senator shall remain in the records inquire president the president mentioned in the senator judge als former senator the late former senator was not exposed but referred to the senate impeachment Senate rather as a legislative body.
I ask the indulgence of the parties to this case within hearing distance of my colleagues basis.
I think what 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, all or nothing.
Senator, they only file two motions and the court will act on these two motions separately regardless of the number of issues or some issues underneath each motion. The reason is Senate President should be a passive body judged by amending the motion into several parts and only after the manifest 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 as well as the comments of our colleagues that may be raised for or against it and it may be cited by the senator judge in extending his vote or voting for or against it.
which is essentially a relief being asked for by a party and there is president so far as this position taken by the presiding officer is concerned in one week's time impeachment of former chief justice late former chief justice Corona Senate President Presiding Officer and ruled that the ruling of the chair motions areible and may only be appealed in Toto and seventhly palang. Thank you Mr. presiding officer and it's clear to me now despite the facting officer there would come a time participatory briefly sir proceed to the matter reservation.
I was about to say minutes for nothing.
Um without exposing it from the records, let it remain.
We will now proceed on the matter at hand. We now resolve consideration of the prosecution's request for the issuance of subpoenas number one for the bank and the anti-man council on the other on one hand and to the bureau of internal revenue on the other and as previously agreed and discussed um not only in the directly by the presiding officer members important chair will now recognize distinguish between um senator two separate procedural questions or Senator Judge Villaina or Senator who would want no one's raising their hand is recognized evidentiary you may proceed thereafter prosecution thank you Mr. President, thank you deciding officer Congressman sir to say give way to our issuance of a Mr. President before I made a a production of some questions to the uh prosecution and the defense by itself amount to a ruling something Mr. Presiding records are admissible relevant to evidence your honor before the member of the panel for prosecutors regular court he's not the lead prosecutor the question is addressed to um the honorable representative is a member who is part of the panel of prosecutors who will be answering your questions and for the record on the part of the respondent I think it's attorney will be answering that's correct so We don't need to identify each one each time anymore for the record. The honorable may respond to the question of Senator impeachment portion from what factual basis that the resolution simply to authorize all or not whether those evidence admissible evidence.
They only file two motions 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 um simple because the court should be a passive body by amending the motion at several voting on it separately. 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 the factors panel if that distinction may be raised for or against it by the senator judge explaining or voting for or against a sub by itself to the court being asked for by a party. Yes.
While we position so far as this position taken by the presiding officer is concerned, what we are questioning in the impeachment of the former chief justice, late former chief justice then Senate Presidenting officer but even under his prudence the ruling of the chair of only be appealed and thank you uh Mr. presiding officer and relevance. It's clear to me I lacking in this case and that is why we maintain our position as regards proposing request for example to be admitted as evidence by this requirement.
panel of prosecutor dependator judges. This representation would clarify one procedural matter. We understand concerns that overly broad We also recognize that the court ruling determine whether the records being raising some questions the issues before us to the uh to the uh representative parties the guidance of the court I think it's important distinguish between records two separate procedural questions expedition record.
Let me start by asking our prosecutor article which involves charges of unexplained congressman. Would it be correct to say of the production of itself ruling that those are admissible what we would call lawful or evidentary wait your honor before the member of the parlu He's not the lead prosecutor. Um the question is addressed to the honorable representative who is a member who was part of the panel of prosecutors who will be answering your questions and for the record on the part of the respondent I think it's will be answering so that we don't need to identify each one each time anymore for the record. Um the honorable may respond to the question of senator judge proceed when you're ready.
Good afternoon and in fact if I may support from what he said the fail the complainant that the resolution consideration was simply authorized from the time he evidence subed are admissible given consideration all of his violations of income in relation.
We want to see the entire picture records defense bank records and even the anti-mal but the defense that the story as far as both of liabilities network are concerned by itself already to the respondent even before the court has ruled on admission question prosecution. Yes, your honor. Uh, good afternoon honorable.
While we agree with the position of the prosecution, what we are questioning is really under jurist prudence.
records of statuto and that is why we maintain our position compulsory production record.
May we know what led the prosecution at least is not necessary is the least opening of records and appropriately presented in obtaining the information. In other words, good but also necessary on 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 question and at the same time we also recognize that the court has a duty man to determine whether the records being sought are sufficiently relevant and material to the issues before us.
As far as the representative requesting Supreme Court both the bank records director to be produced as well as thank you records that we thank you very much article two if I recall it right last week and this representation would like better understand.
We recognize that the law what we would call lawful and if there is illegitimate protecting uh confidential snapshot we are also dealing with a request liabilities and government official for this impeachment judges it's our decide cases of the anti-moneyaundering last time which prohibits the disclosure of confidential information with the impeachment court because >> the failure of the complainant As I read uh your honor consideration respondent Rafael's net worth it imposes confidentiality entered government service expressly create the failure to take into consideration all of his possible sources of income in relationship to support an authorized disclosure and production pursuant to a lawful order of a constitutional body not determined.
Again my question your honors say that she may refuse lawful subject the entire picture records and as we all know that the spring as far as both over And while the impeachment is a constitution, it cannot work over and above the consecution.
And when we talk about the impeachment under article 11, we cannot read that in isolation. We have to also give due regard to all other provisions of the constitution specifically the bill of rights due process.
New due process is available underress.
So now let's go on your honor section 8.
So you can see your honor compromis may we know what other laws they created for example in the secrecy laws in cases of impeachment and most in other words your honor is not cited impeachment as an exception if it did notary actually wish to do so.
But unfortunately under this it is our position that if we were to compel an issue against violation this very section of the law and that is why we are saying process are actually important to compel the production of these documents precisely will have sufficient to it's confidential and as far as the particular records are determined are concerned they find out that certain areaundering or should be as complaint and that is why your honors as toidential Thank you for that and that will be shown on record by the bank records.
>> I was trying to look at that particular uh section section 8 and tax records that we are requesting.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't see any discord relevance and if I recall it right last week mention of bank record questions let me move forward this could be my last question uh this representation would like to better understand the legal basis constitution defense on confidentiality to equally recognize that the law places a confidentiality premium hand on protecting the freedom confidential information. At the same time, it promotes we are also dealing with a request in the course of a constitutional proceeding for the benefit or judges in our try and decide legal distation between disclosure of information the general public a of the limited time which prohibits the disclosure of confidential exercise of its function.
Please apply because we we understand that the A subb is principle of freedom of information is rooted interest your honor section especially when the uh it imposes confidentiality public officer does not under constitutional scrutiny absolute privilege against confidentiality is a distinction agree attorney an authorized disclosion for a local order of the use body and disclosure. Again my question your honor the records where exactly refuse impeachment lawful submission from this court your honoridentiality and as we all know spring cannot impeachment creation. It cannot over and above itself and when we need to win the impeachment court under article. We cannot read that in must be confined. We have to also impose oil perend specifically you know we are not against trans we are not against mention last week we are all looking for accountability.
Now let's go on section including absent confidentiality in terms of reporth unlike other laws where they created in the bank.
However, your honor, certain conditions may be allowed for other record since this is a 2021 amendment. It could have been easy if we were for Congress to have cited impeachment.
If it did actually wish, it is under your court and it is some of judicial because we are not technically offending this law official person to violate the law. That is why we are saying it does not instances documents. Uh I think we feel in the search truth confidential once we must still work within a framework once we determined which means that we must find out by the subject to money in court attorney and that is why your honor as to receive proposed. Thank you for that record.
I was trying to look at what particular circumstances under which bank records financial transactions I don't see anything competent authorities subject always of course Mr. President to appropriate process so confidentiality But legally constitutional right two equally important privacy accountability our laws of protection Mr. President Mr. presiding off and public accountability on the >> Thank you Senator Judge Villanva your remarks and respons and our dear colleagues here judges may legal distinction between disclosure of information to the general public >> and the limited production of records solely to this uh impeachment court in the exercise of its constitutional function because we we understand that >> principle of uh freedom of information discussion with rooted in transparency and public accountability especially when the uh conduct is under constitutional uh scrutiny. uh if the government confidentiality is the concern that uh there's a >> would you agree uh attorney that a business and of course >> this impeachment particular businessman or business woman who is violating on the use a lot of laws the operation of business can they just impeachment andidentiality courts.
This is the essence impeachment court.
It must be confined to the limits imposed by the constitution and the law.
You know, we are not against transparency. I just want to make that clear your honor. We are not against accountability. Again as I've mentioned last year I mean last week liberty and property so that we are all looking for accountability of course somebody's life government has to step up and prevent somebody's liberty in terms of life and liberty 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 you whatever honors no certainty may be allowed for other records absolute prohibition and if we were in the landmark case of Stonehill versus 1967 lawyers then it is as if this honorable importance of due process some legislation because we are general warranting this lawific serving them to decide or general warrants. I think your honor to defend your honor because they in the search for privacy accountability. We must We must still work within the framework attorney versus record through an uncaradable for any purpose in any proceeding amendments to 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 in due process.
Indeed, confidentiality is an important legal protection of law to do that because I will abide and I want must be able to protect law.
Mr. President, I don't have lady may proceed.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Senator Judge Vaina. Your remarks and respons were very we I think we engage in a fruitful discussion for some not for all. I think I think all of you will uh attest. I also wanted to learn from all of you perceptions fruits of the poison tree. I'm ready Mr. documentary I'd like to start this discussion with a question hopefully well who are watching observation of course had in mind that there's and this is where I will pose the question to all of you businesswoman who is violating defense operation of their business.
Can they just proceed later on? I will ask both parties acquiring clarify and but the point is to produce those documents.
similar root of the poison.
So this is legal drama throw out the case is thrown out the principle of process violate due process. This is the discussion I want to have. I want to hear both of why prosecution would you say and before I give the floor to the right to life involves childhill if somebody's life is also in danger then government has to cover and prevent somebody's liberty was the secretary and in this case the government I think we can prosecutor suspect and his associates and several corporations legal violating central tariff and internal revenue request issuance of so in the landmark case of hills 1967 lawyers vouchers the importance of due process was high and the supreme court and other documents two points general warrant are void all the business a warrant must be issued on probable cause for once and the other petitioners petition arguing search warrants general warrants because they did not particularly describe the things to be seized so warrants that lead of the officer serving them to financial or general warrants outlawed by the general rule because they sanctity general and privacy at the mercy war must be based on proceeding pointing it out.
So the other principle that was established in Stonehill versus the exclusionary rule evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings I kind of did not read. I need to get because this is a landmark case.
I don't have to name bar students or not. That is my question. I will sit down and then I will come back for my next please let me know.
>> Thank you honor recognized.
>> The member of the panel of prosecutors may proceed to give this answer there. I want to mention correspondent provisions of law that we discussed I don't have to mention search warrant issue stone hill versus exclusionary rules fruits of the poison very open discussion and I thank many of our colleagues who were very we I think we engage in a fruitful discussion for some for all I think is will attest. I also wanted to learn from others house.
public office any place if I will and this is where I will pose a question to all of you.
Therefore, when we speak of a search warrant, I do agree there should be very specific limitations on how that warrant can be but that is not governed by the constitution. governed by rule 21 of the rules of later on I will ask basically provide for a subpoena to be valid must be relevant and it must be definite of the poison to throw out the case is thrown because of materiality. So that's the discussion I want to have. I want to hear both.
I'm just explaining details of why prosecution you say and before I give the floor to the parties very interestingly involves the father congressman prosecutor and in so far as we have specified the particular documents that we are requesting Major was the secretary of justice and in this case the government through the secretary and other suspected that Harry Stone here and his associates and several corporations that they controlled were violating central bank laws, tariff and customs laws internal events. Just a quick follow issuance of search warrant financial records. Okay.
>> Um, Senator Judge Pia, would you like the council correspondent to answer >> ledgers and not yet and other documents and ask a followup question?
>> You may proceed for that. I I transaction response. Um, may I simply point O'Neal and the other petitioners file for the Supreme Court things to be seized because books of financial records receipts and general warrants must not be extreme based on probable cause. Um and then the case also adopted the evolutionary rule holding that evidence ceased underution is inadmissible the very essence of somebody's I post my questionings earnings so which which we have to agree I think there's no persistent as far as in fact his honor is saying prosecution it could fall and also for the isable.
You will do dine to know your answer by asking but I like to hear it again and I of course explain because this is a landmark case that is my question I will sit down and then I will come back for my next thank you councel for the panel for presentation Sir as a member of the parliament leaders may proceed to disans thereafter the council responded as a court and that is now considered as evidence by the court that issued the search warrant and to the parties when I refer to those documents evidence involved as I mentioned earlier as we are simply Admisibility of those can only be determined after license.
for the permission of the lady senator judge council correspondent may now give his answer very specific limitations on how that warrant can be enforced but that is not governed by the constitution governed by rule 21 the rules of civil procedure which basically provide that for a subpoena to be valid it must be relevant and it must be definitive because we'll be opening up all the financial years we respectfully submit your asking for the standards of our relatives particular tribe to the facts to the challenges of unexplained wealth.
If you look at it, bank records, opening and maintenance records, KYC documents, files, cards, all account and transactions, ledgers, journals, we have this particular documents that we are requesting and we have specified as well.
So in our view the requirements for a subpoena to specify each and every document the truth of the matter is they're asking for everything in the case they cited versus contras that for the issue when we talk about particularly described senator judge would you like the council correspondent evidence that is that is both relevant and material Yeah.
I I respect or material simply again. Please give me your explanation.
And this bolsters theory of course with all due respect which would actually be relevant which would actually be evidentially to the accusations they have made under the articles of impeachment. Very similar.
20 years being which we have to agree that that is protected but in fact his honor is saying I would say both again with all due respecting wealth.
So with the question process the the Stonehill case stone hill versus directly applies to the current proceedings for prosecutors particularly asking your honor and that is now considered specified the search warrant evidence which transaction is relevant to this support and now it is up to the parties and I refer to both parties who decide each of those documents may be relevant in terms of the evidence that your case may be allowed to that they need to present Hold on.
Senator Judge President and as pointed out by it's not a debate between the two responding to answers. We are simply having those documents produced. I actually prefer not to senator. You asked the question they answered. It is not for the opposing council to answer points raised. They had that chance when they did their oral arguments.
>> With the permission of the lady senator council correspondent may give this answer to our query. You may proceed.
>> What is your comment? Your >> honor.
Thank you so much. I just wanted to point out this is the first time an impeachment court is facing compulsory challenge of determining whether the charges previous The things we are asking for particularly short from the same defense failure to account for all sources of income including from ventures and government, account opening, maintenance, relegations, KYC, payments, information, signature, cards, incomplete assessments, disregard accumulated assets over 3 years of public making it impossible to determine whether his property exceed his legitimate financial bank records respondent.
Your honor to specify each and every document The truth of the matter is they're asking for everything in this case even in the case to be valid issued when we talk about particularly describing it has to be evidence that is given that is both relevant and material to that of course of course I recording Yes, your honors. Um, and this bolsters our theory in those cases do not involve implementation.
The accusations documentation impeachment. According to records of the terrorist defense, which brings me offenses or committed officers and in relation to such officers enough, we called it a fishing expedition.
unexplained wealth presidente. So with the question for us, yes, the the Stonehill case, Stonehill versus No, directly applies to the current proceedings specified particularly described and relevant. But as as of this point, they're asking your honors for all of these things.
>> Mr. President, Mr. Presiding officer, I'll go to my next specified each and every document.
>> Kind of overlap with this point as well.
They're actually asking for all bank records without in fact telling us which transaction is relevant to their accusation. Which transaction my next supporting officer and still is still process this is the requirement that every fact and must not contain conclusions at all.
>> So again I'll start with an example. on council for the panel of prosecutors.
Senator Judge P is the one asking the question. Um if if there's a case file, it's not a debate between merely responding to answers from question.
I actually prefer not and if I defer there's another allegation question they answered is not for the opposing council to answer points raised. I I try my best not to be technical. It's in my mind if not so >> you may proceed with the question. My question is what is your question?
Thank you so much. Just wanted to point out this time actually one court example is determining whether the charges of unexplained wealth or not previous later just very general and then later on just a very short portion the same case as I said earlier failure to account for all sources of income proceeds from business ventures and governments further weakens the allegation that Rafael's wealth was unexplained of the day. The incomplete assessment disregarded his accumulated assets over decades of public service, making it impossible to determine whether his property acquisitions are his legitimate financial capacity and rights of the person.
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 legal which were decided recently by the honorable ultimate facts and therefore the case before the Supreme Court. I'll give you your time to answer that. I don't really recall that of course I yield. Of course the same I'm assuming yes your honor again however those impeachment and why is that relevant empments basis again impeachment according to the case of the territory versus impeachable offense again offenses or acts committed while the public officer is occupying office and in relation to you to state your case I cannot do that but what I'm asking If you can point out allegations of ultimate facts and this is where before I pass on the um the um the floor to the parties to answer. I want to go into the principle of fishing expedition.
I came across the the um trial.
>> Mr. President, Mr. Presiding officer, I'll go to my next point and kind of overlap with this point.
Exactly.
Bear with me. Uh for for today um fishing expedition and no less than uh the defense had to explain it in Filipino. My next point, Mr. fishing besiding officer and parties still is still um on this requirement that every pleading must be ultimate facts and must not a case and so again I'll start with an example versus metro for example um if there's a case filed no and rob motion for issuance of one documents relative to Metro as well as those covering extra forclosure. It's another allegations.
Therefore, Juan is guilty of building their own case from the evidence of component. I try my best. It's in my no your case has to be built.
I will also parties in this case one rob the house of Mario example is also included Mario why this is important facts later by just very general and then later on of the crimeitute robbery why this is not a fishing expedition why the case does not apply and then using violence that's what makes it robbery. Council for respondent will give his answer first with respect to um the question of senator on ultimate fact as well as on fishing expedition thereafter council for the panel of prosecutors in a way that people understand without lack of committee once the allegation and I'll stick to just with this I article and the defense there was an allegation in their questions the failure to unexplained facts and therefore I think the case I'll give you your time to answer I don't really recall that I mentioned in the order of the basic The preceding if I may remember was really just from 2007 except for the fact me as a judge which I mentioned arguments last week supporting document supporting document that will support any allegation whatsoever of that even more significant I cannot do that but what I'm asking is point oft before I very important for us because we had already filed our answer before documents were suddenly produced with the issuance of subpoenas before the B box concerned principal that we are concerning ourselves with was presented before the committee on justice 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-complate for us to even answering and no less before this honorable court.
I do recall that in our answer, we also took pains to discuss the the ultimate facts and also the what 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 motion for exclusion answer precisely we were objecting to the fact of evidenceandom after documents relative to their on the fishing expedition. I think on the fishing expedition her own honors our main point is even to building their whole case with the evidence of their own case has to be built has to be there. So I will also ask this is only that relevant to this at least for the prosecution 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 ultimate at least with the request for their memorandum in their memorandum.
This does not assume wrongdoing.
I want those documents nonetheless to see if something disappeared.
You may proceed sir when you're ready council for the panel of preseers lack of ultimate question on justice what are the ultimate facts alleged in the article the allegation and I'll stick of the articles if I may there was an allegation of unexplained council >> thank you honor respondent vice president Sarah Zut committed violation of the constitution the public trust when she must unexplain wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and during her incumbency as a public official failed to fully and truthfully disclose all her and her spouse's assets liabilities and net worth statement of assets liabilities from 200 including in her salance for the years 2020 22, 2023 and 202 and C does not fail to divest and instead whatsoever all her business for the fact that it during her tenure as vice president for the years 2023 and I mentioned in order to briefly explain why these are supporting document essential factors that make up supporting document any allegation of murder, treachery, evident premeditation that is why and this is more significant. We are alleging first of all respondent had filed wealth and based on the prudence the elements of unexplained wealth elements are amassing unexplained wealth manifested in proportion to one's lawful earnings during asyena factor that we are concerned how it was presented before the committee succeeding pages.
In fact, when they were saying that it was a non to be very candid, we wanted to say it was a noncomplained wealth onto the issue of fishing expedition ultimately for us to even answer this honorable court. Do recall that in our answer we also took a pain in the fishing expedition when the party requesting information does not also what we feel were violations chance for the unjustice proceedings that were conducted before the evidence that may be used against the other and that is also why we have aending motion for exclusional during the hearings before the committee on justice because we were objected to the director of the anti-alum council testified and produced documents.
>> We had already filed our answer from 201 basis and if we go deeper into that it says that during the period from 2007 to 2013 this may during the time that she served as mayor and vice mayor This only shows again on the part of the defense we are not saying that there's also reports it uses the word may in those several times that I mentioned and it even says in one paragraph I think But I might be mistaken. If we have no basis at all for their memorandum assume wrong in this particular case, they want those documents. Nonetheless, these are matters of record presented before the committee on justice will actually help support their allegations.
That is why we are calling it a fishing expedition.
It's very clear with whether government official has amassed unexplained wealth. We must look at the panel official starting from day one. We look the question propounded to this representation first that he or she has.
the ultimate facts alleged in the article and from there we make seven of the articles or not and if I may be honest the fishing expedition argument so is untenable respondent vice president 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 spouse her 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 and 2024 and C failed to divest and instead willfully continue all her business interests during her tenure as vice president for the years.
23, 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.
In the house in our case we are alleging first of all I asked my question and based on the jury's prudence the elements of unexplained wealth elements are amassing unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate represent's lawful income and earnings during one's incumbency as a public official satisfy requirement alleged my understanding of the law because it's what is read in the law and I won't take up the time in the succeeding pages unexplained wealth onto the fishing expedition in general the discussion in our discussion last week.
When the party requesting information does not know tries to instrument in order to gain allegations against so that's my question during the committee on justice the executive director of the anti-moneyaundering council testified and produced documents specific officers to share that >> from 2007 up to the president specific provision of the law council. Please respond please um elaborate on how this supports or does not support your case on that specific goer into that report.
during the period of information.
I believe I believe and again >> so to elaborate on this that's referring to we are not just institution that there is something there and the amla itself has confirmed agencies that there were covered and suspicious transaction reports subitted that I mentioned I will leave this fishing expedition if we had no basis at is being divulged what was the reported then how do you precisely the in this particular case of the poison tree because these are matters of tell us presented before the committee that information is not the fruit of the poison tree for the side of the tell us why is the product of the fruitare for the when it comes Issues of unexplained wealth your honor of the anti court are very clear is really intended to whether government official has amassed unexplained issues of the anti prevent starting from day one we look at impeachment that he or she has almost every week the San is from there we despite what would appear to be A very for this reason prohibition condition is totally every time subpoenas are issued by they are honored and no one is questioning them impeachment court. The subpoena issued by this impeachment court is for the purpose of determining accountability based on the power that is expressly given. It's actually just a followup to what is that confidentiality how the prosecution responded I think senator Alan council go into it but since this is your honor I can clarify if indeed the sanct as mentioned I earlier mentioned against fruit of the poison that I will not comment on because I cannot verify that what is clear to us is we have demonstrated last week is that 8A is an absolute prohibition. And again, this was the latest amendment of the law back in 2021.
And uh for us, your honors, that is why when this was presented, the House Committee on Justice >> because it was presented, >> we had our objections to such matter and in fact your honors, that is correct. is the subject of our petition the Supreme Court and aside from that a subject of our motion for exclusion before this honorable court to respond is it is in fact within the fruit of the poisonous tree surprise your honors in the hearing distinguished opposing council I don't think my understanding if I'm not mistaken it was also attached the articles and I won't take up of this court impeachment court I don't want to speculate maybe I just won't go there we have questioning officer has given me relevant transactions do not equate our transactions equate to network especially because transactions happen over the course of the year and in this case but when you talk about we talk about network and a specific date and time which is December 31 will not directly show any discussion about again transactions do not equate to net worth of a certain personific officer. That is why your honors we have opposed this but the specific we have opposed this since the time it was being presented please respond please um elaborate just for the record and for the information of the senator judges I'm not sure about this issuing a subpoena every week as well against but I'm well aware the court is well aware of cases with the supreme court precisely Can you wind up? I believe I believe and again you feel free to >> at this juncture chair I will now recognize Senator Judge um Alan Gayano for his interjection and question hierarchy and the >> before I ask question Mr. Presiding officer may I because president former Senate President and the whole court because in our caucus >> that if it is confidential it does not allow you allowed us to have the weekend divulged review all of the law so that we can ask more intelligent how do you use that because that is precisely the document you allowed of the fruit >> to hear the discussions mostly by Senator Pia tell us Why?
>> Senator Lakon and Senator >> that information is not the fruit of the poison. Senator for the side of the the defense they will tell us why they believe.
>> We discussed uh the fruit of the poison tree.
>> What word did you use a while ago presiding officer motions but there are >> issues under issues and some issues. So it's really intended after we ask questions and after you make a ruling instead of asking for division of the house just in case we do not agree from make a manifestation others agree on how we can buy in writing what the ruling we agree or disagree for the appearance noted your honor may proceed contained in that section Every time are issued by the San Diego Bay, they are honored. I really want to be enlightened. I have no illusion today because you have the issued by the oned but I think the discussions are very important and I do appreciate your opening as Congressman Jo. I appreciate your I mean your moral arguments because >> I cannot pondering these questions. What if this administration let's say in future administration >> every week so this exact thing happened because I cannot 5 years 10 years last week is that 8A is an absolute prohibition chairman this was the latest files cases many very much relevant just in the spirit of liberation Objection matter after one answers if one wants to make a rebuttal I will ask you the question but aside from that let's try to motion council may of duterte versus house of representatives thank you for reminding us about certain procedurers because >> when you have legal proceedings even in legislation you follow what the latest for example my records allowed to issue before but after impeachment doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous I don't want to speculate some policemen will still submit evidence that was illegally acquired we have to follow throughout so you did make your point about uh later I'll go to that honor transactions do not equate versus house with your permission that's worth transactions happen over the course of the year and in this case years but when you talk about sal we talk about net worth on a specific specific date in time two elements 31 of every year H paragraph two of the constitution not committed must be committed during the term of the impeachable officer. You commented on that. Can you elaborate or give your standard?
>> I think you agree with letter Aeable offense. We all agree on that since the time I will distinguish your honor please between what we would call Russia. For the record and for the information of the senator judges, I'm not sure about his subpoena every week as well against well aware the court is well aware of cases of the determined by I would have to disagree that it relates that you mentioned my understanding of that case is it really relates to this church would I recognize that must be followed for his objection.
Constitution that will be applied when complaints are filed by the members of the House of Representatives President that the basis of any charge must relate to the incumbency of the official in my view that this you allowed us I appreciate your answer will go to that view all of regardless of the deterative versus house of representatives we do agree with letter A to act must be an impeachable offense to discussions mostly by somebody I would be allowed to just qualify. No, this is just a general question. So the officer has to be impeachable and the acts we discussed should a complex should be an impeachable two motions question. is just laying the sub issues issues on the sub issues. So the acts charged must after we ask questions and after you make a ruling instead of asking offense of the house agree. Okay. Um so uh you on how the customer agree or disagree.
>> Thank you for bringing it up. I pronounce your honor.
especially in um articles where we will bring up acts before 2022.
>> I really want to be an I have no illusion today. We have the eloquent um attorney joke on one side and no joke no joke on the other side. So including proof bank records I think are very important before her term. I do appreciate your opening as uh congressman the prosecution says I mean your victim >> I I've been pondering I'm just restating this question what if you believe in this administration future administration during the term of the impeachable >> this exact thing happened is not the law of the years 10 years if your honor is not the exact state of the court the court said the basis or related file cases many congressman very very much relevant personality saying judicial as if one wants more eloquent I'll correct the question to be concern you start with the case of you for the sake of this discussion thank you for reminding us about certain proceedings class is not necessary for the um yeah and remark legislation expressed by following a cause. So for example, by the way, if you're allowed to issue directly or directly after introduced by way of the illustration, analogy or some policemen will still submit binding procedur Is there house representatives? So is your permission or admissibility discussing that are you aware of we are after 14247 March 192 I won't take it against both of you if you do not there be thousands of cases it it two elements the act charge must be impeachable under article 11 The prosecution paragraph the constitution of the requirement basis of the committed during the term of the impeachable impeachable comment on the mission elaborate relations there regarding during the letter of the impeachable the charge must be an impeachable auditor. We all agree on that right. Um >> I will distinguish your honor please call rashio decided appeals and the supreme which are comments or incidentalation on any issues if we are presented by House of Representatives even where the point is incidentally involved it relates to so we agree it's incidentally my understanding of that case is it really is the first mode of the procedures that must be filed presented and decided in the regular course of the consideration how that will be applied and led up to the final complaints are filed as to the matter of decision is predicated.
that a point expressly decided does not lose its value of the because the disposition of the case or might have been made on some appearance of regarding we do agree with the status of the act charge must one point should not merely because another point was and more this is just a general it's not a question going back to the officer has to be presentable the requirement that impeachable act charge should be committed in relation to their office should be a judachable offense and since you have betrayal that's quite broad just laying the basis the supreme court if you want it down as one of the enumerated principles that due process require bar so this is the question you disagree that uh is Does it not render the requirement laid out in the act of the term of the officer because it's based on bring up regardless of the I think all throughout initiation that regardless of the especially in articles of impeachment articles where we due process still 2022 this discussion will be recognized your honor if the matter is within the issues it will solve by the court then it may not be considered or not auditor including if we look at the decision records versus house of representatives before her term prosecution complaints that were endorsed because complaint filed by at least onethird of the members I'm justating the supreme court a statement was committed during the term of the supreme court made pronouncements It's not the law and even in the first place your honor please not the exact state that court was the court said the basis of the charge must inumbable official presentation of evidenceual complaints omissions referred by the committee became and then brought back to judicial notice of eventually more eloquently and correctly term impeachable. You define in relation to you defined this in your opening statement for the sake of this discussion.
It's a side not necessary for the resolution inside the case in that case.
I not argue with you or expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause before question on that incidentally or collateral directly upon the questional principle of due process not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause or introduc.
So such are not Your honor, please. When we speak of new process, of course, there are substantive and procedural process and when we speak of substantive, we're talking about protections, life, liberty, issue, whether 14247 March 19, 2012. I won't take it against both of you if you do not dare >> and I do believe that thousands of this proceeding does require fundamental fairness talks about what is at the same time it does not require that this court be in terms of the prosecution characterized characterization of the requirement on the basis of the charge that powers exclusively given impeachable acts or committed in relation to their office during the current term of the impeachable when we speak of as an impeachable offense on the court of appeals the basis of the charge because in our view that is really something that each memberation on any point in the issues later presented by the case cannot be considered an auditor what if even where the point is only incidentally involved or uh >> so we agree it's incidental the point is if we're saying that in the issue So long as it is presented and decided in relation and led up to the final conclusion, would it be illogical as a leader as to the matter of which the decision can be committed in relation to their office decided does not lose its value as a claim for them because the disposition of the case is in saying this or might have been made on some other ground and that where a court decides several points none of such points Even if we assume your honor thating the status of a one point should not be denied of the charge must relate because another point was more dwelt on and more fully argued and considered >> that still going back to the house of representative the requirement that act integity >> be committed in relation to their office during the current term that's not a remark if a president supreme court and chair It was 16 years old when he started in a process of 20 years old. He couldn't be impeached on the ruling when he was 20 to 30. Even if the court when he was already based on the one-year bar unexplained wealth your honor did not render the due process requirement laid out in provide as based on due process of service regardless of the mode. look at all the regards to the mode of how and determine whether it is disproportionate to the loss of that.
>> Yes, I agree in terms of holding that person of prosecutors may respond as a counselor. If the matter is within the issues resolved by the court then it may not be considered as but if we look at the decision in the case of the remedy for all these other positions that imparts that were endorsed conduct etc. Once you're impeachable at least oneird of the members of the house, you're being held accountable to acting supreme courte I would have to respectfully disagree public and I think it's very public we referred by the public official injustice or unheard by the committee in service through our vice mayor mayor about I think that offenses in relation on the court's decision charges that person should officer office issues that permission of senator judge >> I will not argue with you that's not my job follow I request convey to the officer defense but just a follow-up question your belief on that is not a break for all of us the legal principle of break to that mode >> so that um >> is it not logical that it's the same principle even if you use another >> first of all if you're on the process of course there are types including senator procedural >> so chair declares a 5minut break we shall resume at We're talking about protections to life, liberty, and property because office is not a property. We're not talking about the life or liberty of the respondent.
due process issue I 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 deser decide whether an offense is impeachable or not. That power is exclusively given to this court.
So when we when we speak of what is an impeachable offense, the basis of the charge must relate to the incumbency because in in our view that is really something that each member of this honorable court will have to decide when the time comes.
>> Yeah. Later on, I'll ask you that question you whether or not uh what if ever can the Supreme Court uh decide or uh what of their pronouncements will be applicable to this court and that but my point is if we're saying that mode of initiation is by one committed in relation to their office during the current term. Wouldn't it be illogical if you use another mode and peding can be committed in relation to their office and during their current term? I don't think the Supreme Court would be uh 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 um that is not orbiter 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 integrity. So on that point, so if a president, an ombbudsman, a co-a 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 done 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 manifestally disproportionate to the lawful income that he has reported.
>> Yes, I agree in terms of holding that person uh liable and accountable. But what I'm saying is that let's say he was a counselor, then he was a customs com uh customs uh director, then he was B, 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 uh case buildup, etc. But once you're 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, council?
>> I I would have to respectfully disagree.
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.
Unexplained wealth, vice mayor or mayor billion. 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.
>> Okay. As I said >> with the permission of Senator Judge um Alan Gayana with your indulgence sir um a request was conveyed to the presiding officer um to declare a very brief break um this is not a break for all of us but um a very brief break of 5 minutes so that um um council may answer to the call of nature. Um that was the message um conveyed to this respon the presiding officer including senator judge kayatano. So chair declares a 5m minute break. We shall resume at 4:05. Five.
resumed. We shall resume the um interventions of Senator Judge Alan Cayano um pertaining to the issue at hand on the twin request for subpoena by the prosecution. You may proceed. Senator Judge Allen when you're ready. Presiding officer, if I may start there now whether or not the prosecute the defense although they stated already in their opening statement considers uh such statement in the Duterte case as a dictum and I'd like to reiterate it's very important that we all understand and come to our own conclusions because many many times during this trial and even in the decision we'll have to make um this question will will uh will play a center uh will be front and center. So may I ask attorney POA um do you think that statement was a aertor dictum? As stated, your honors, thank you for the question. As stated uh last week, your honors, it is our position of the defense that that is not abiter uh dictum precisely because your honors, it is our theory that when the Supreme Court decided the case of Dutter versus HO, the the point that the one-year bar was triggered 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 uh senior associate justice Marvikon painstakingly discussed what due process is actually in an impeachment proceeding and in fact uh there was a line in that decision that says that they wanted to clarify the guidelines on impeachment proceedings. Further to that, your honor, or summary 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 uh in fact we have prepared copies of that primer for uh the senator judges which we can distribute so that Makita Puno While effect trigger one-year bar, it was really due process that the Supreme Court was discussing in that case to guide.
>> Yes.
>> Commission um council correspondent kindly submit that to the clerk of court.
>> Yes, your honor.
>> Thank you. You may proceed, sir. So while the as I was saying your honors while uh end result is trigger one-year bar and that's why void first round of impeachment supreme court is the observance of due process in every stage of the proceeding and that is why it is very important is really impeachable offense.
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 is the view of the defense pronouncement supreme court as to what constitutes as an impeachable offense.
>> Yes. Um I'm not texting. I'm I got on my phone the Duterte versus House of Representatives because of course my follow-up questions was to get into the mind of the prosecution when to apply the Duterte case and when not to. So, but I'll I'll still ask you the same question. So, is it what's more logical that the due process requirement that uh that the acts committed should have been on the term is also applied to the other modes or just to the one-/3 mode?
>> All modes of impeachment, your honor.
That is our position.
We would veer into absurdity mode impeachable offenses limited term other mode which admittedly current proceedings definition impeachable offense. Uh I do not see any logic on why there is a difference because an impeachable offense is an impeachable offense. So that should apply and in fact the Supreme Court did not make a distinction as to the guidelines that we shall resume the interventions of Senator Judge Alan Kayatano.
>> Yeah. So um in the first page the issue at hand second considering the nature of the offices that are subject to presiding officer it's whe only independence of constitutional parties and they stated and it nature as a constitutional process all legal issues involving impeachment procedures are subject to jud and whether officer may many times from trial and even in the decision duty to con and this question process mandated by the constitution will play a sense is this for you will be front and center so part of the national or do you think that statement was so your honor statement started the decision said that the honor does not defense because it was precisely discussing the precisely it is our theory that we're talking about versus H >> with the permission of Senator Judge Allen.
>> The point I would just like to get one year bar was triggered of the council >> precisely because there was a violation of due process. documents sought to be distributed by the city council correspondent supreme court of senior associate justice Marvik discussion of the narative vis what due process is actually in an impeachment proceeding and in fact there was a line in that decision that says that >> with the permission of the prosecution we shall distribute it without prejudice to the council proceedings for the panel of further also furnish whenever it shall desire because of the proceeding prejudice to the council prosecutor which was around seven points if I'm not mistaken and the six point document is actually an impeachable offense and in fact we have prepared request for the center judges which we can refers to So that spokesperson that's correct the Supreme Court in which case your honor we would have to enter one year >> because any it was really due that the Supreme Court was discussing is not binding on the Supreme Court. What we must look kindly submit that to the clerk of court decision. Well, council you can say that in your point that as I was saying your honor while you submission is not triggering one year and that's why clerk of court is there without prejudice judge you may proceed that is why it is very important to the really impeachable offense materials. 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.
>> Can I ask the same question? Uh >> so that is why your honors is the view of the defense.
>> I read a few paragraphs pronouncement is very important to us to what you heard as an impeachable offense. If I may be allowed to respond already to the >> I'm not texting. I'm first of all your honor I think my point versus how clean reasons why my followup question to the mind of the prosecution when to apply trial but I'll still ask you the same when the Supreme Court that decision is trial by the report about also apply to the other modes or just to them all of your honor that is our position they may be absurd already but just to adceable offense or impeachable see nations committed by their relation of the impeachable officer for the president and vice president. In fact, the Supreme Court did not make distinction as to the guidelines that it laid down the crime described in article 11 section 31 of betrayal of public given by the majority of the electorate.
Second considering inable officers and the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine in effect way it effects and autonomy. So this doesn't really natural issues involving you don't followings are subject in danger of uh while determining when who and whether an impeachable officer may be disqualified anyway we've gone through that it has going back process mandated what I read is considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment it effects on independent That's why the Supreme Court when it starts a constitution process on legal issues and justifies the proceedings because it was precisely discussing the means of English. So since we're we're not we'll go to the end for us to justify decide >> with the permission of senator judge Allen my interpretation and I would just like to get many many times of the council forement the documents ought to be distributed by the council correspondent >> is a July 25 2025 um apologize to senator >> discussion on the derative v h on the oneear the decision of rule. My belief no appeal the decision of uh >> 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 kayano will linger >> until the end of the proceedings from subject to judicial judges with their you agree >> to this it's within our power to make this decision your honor I believe I believe what your honor are the cases of I believe that documents refers to the spokes because in those cases the issue of what is an impeachable case your honor we would have to interrogation that by a political question not within the judicial power we must look are the text that should be decision council you can say that in your be more specific so for example an issue some point out is some one or both of them go to the clerk of court is directed to kindly distribute the copies without prejudice to the prosecutors submitting a rejoinder to this documentator judge you may proceed sir apolog I wouldn't have objected to object because ruling In our opinion, it will be more this court has the sole and exclusive all power to decide and impreachable offenses and no one not in every to be fair to everyone if the voting was tomorrow or it would be unfair to distribute it. Uh no, >> can I ask the same question?
You can go back to that question and my followup question was uh it's the first let's say certain orders of the court can prosecution or defense go out to the heard question.
Yes, your honor if I may be allowed to respond already to the parties can do that. First of all, I think we must point out one of the reasons why isolation statement is so victim to the Senate and that's simply because there was no trial yet that decision is article 8 by the We are positional this is a judicial issue and can be brought outside the issues of that case and while they may be guidelines they are not binding agreement abuse of discretion >> to us and to the future generally that the Supreme Court will take it I was referring to different matter I'm talking in general it's not a few pages of my it must impeachable your opinions or commissions committed in relation to their office during the current term.
Supreme but impeachable that we can do anything for the president and vice president. These acts must be made based on amounting on the crimes described in article 11 of betrayal of trust given by the majority of the accounts or the dollar for the other impeachable officers. the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh our own constitutional independence and autonomy. So this doesn't really tell us how to conduct the trial. This basically tells us if we don't follow that voted not we're endangered of course we know because of the trial that's chief justice I would have to disagree. So can I go now to the we've gone through that argument and I won't argue with both of you. Going back to Senator Joel Senator asked a little bit. Second considering the nature of the offices and the institutions are subject to preview or maybe effect on independence of also governed by the rules of court when it comes to nature as a constitutional process all legal issues involved. In general, every pleading shall contain in a methodological and logical form a concise and direct statement intimate fact including the on which the party relies on his or her claim of defense as the case may be relied on his many clearly its wages.
So do does the two councils agree that ultimate facts you have to include the evidence? to Senator Judge Resa. would make a distinction, your honor, between what we call ultimate facts and evidentary the decision which are the basis of evidence to come to the court decision of decide whether those two are present in the Supreme Court but I think lawyers agree with that there's a difference between ultimate and the rules of court says including evidence including evidence issues involate impeachment our subject.
I don't you doesn't mean every single in within our power to make so let me go to my second controlling decision are the cases of um ultimate and the evidence because in those cases the issue requirement is an implementable offense before the courts and the courts you look at the articles of impeachment that is purely foral question that also contains us to actual allegations. I do support that facts that are controlling that.
For example, we issue some subpoena containing you do not issue some with respect to the salation that authentic records. Well, there is always the possibility that um some perhaps the defense may claim that if your honor, please first of all use discretion as they have an issue with respect to and therefore court is acting as an as I have last week in our opinion to initiate an not even the Supreme Court can be lodged. with this on this court and I don't believe that it is part of the function to go back to you can go back to the question followup question the articles already certain order given your prosecution go up to the supreme court recognize that you are a brilliant man you're very well it is our position that either the parties why because that's not where the constitution cannot be read collaboration. So two of my colleagues started with your discussions on fishing expedition impeachment going down to impeachment and you must read this in conjunction I wanted to distinguish article when it when it's not. specifically section one which is the power to use we are of the position that in fact uh this is a justable issue and can be brought before the Supreme Court your honor >> what's the point again there were no it was just preliminary because I wanted to comparement question there and I wanted to ask the question Supreme Court will take it up not referring to any fishing expedition to the subpoena I'm These are legitimate questions. So I'll skip few pages of equally questions precisely my authentic your opinions on your standard information. fact that the I don't want to uh is supreme but it's not senator that these can complain that on statutes and if I'm not mistaken respondents answer and to be fair as well as the annexes foreign accounts the presiding officer noticed that it lacked page in one of the annexes to the I think Zabalia but of course pointed out so that's a factor in the record So in the absence of authentic supporting rises, what factual basis did the prosecution rely on because of history to say that allegations were sufficient in form and so can I go now to the correctly your honor please? There were some attachments to >> I don't know where Senator Joel but Senator Pia asked a little bit about >> I'm not aware of any rule in the House of Representatives as far as a quick review that limit >> we're also governed by the rules of court investigated section only in general every plea shall contain a methodical I'm not questioning if there's a plain concise and direct whether there is the ultimate facts I'm asking question not even questioning it I'm asking which the party relies on his or her authentic defense as the case may be if a cause of action or defense claimed against based on resin conditions thereof and their applicability. The finding was the complaint failed clearly establish any concisely between the president the two councils agree that what we have policy and disagreements and generalized accusations. I would make a distinction your honor between what we call facts and evidentiary facts which are the pieces of evidence that could be used to come to the conclusion or to so that's my question after answering that question does the lawyers requirement of alleging ultimate ultimate facts and evidentary facts applies to all impeachment including regardless of it's the president including evidence or the ultimate chair Yes, your honor when the members of the committee doesn't mean that every single complaint filed against every single document of the committee was in fact let me go to my second law of that complaint ultimate facts in that complaint there were requirement I don't ultimate facts documents but if you look at the articles of impeachment that are before It also contains evidentiary factual allegations to support the ultimate facts that are contained therein.
>> Thank you for that question your honor please. So ultimate facts is really based on what alleged. With respect to the Sabalia and what was the exact word is it correct that there was no records that were attached when they were confidential hind president Marcos is your honor please first of all but in the case of an issue with Vice President to call exclusively judged that the house complained the power to try and decide fact. So there was a conclusion even before asking for all of this but in this case >> I don't believe that it is part there's a conclusion that there's no nexus go back to may have happened during the president offense in this case the articles have already been transmitted even students recognize that you are confidential which goes to my welfare let me honor who I should say actually that's not where I was going uh two of my colleagues started with or in your discussions fishing expedition party and evidentially I wanted it a fishing expedition and when it's not so I just wanted to know as a fact was here in their case there was no I can say record in the case because they wanted the same standards of president and vice president. So that that's my next question.
>> What's the point? You want fairness for everyone?
>> It was just preliminary because I wanted to complain from and I wanted to ask the PR and bank accounts from um president requiring the same. These are legitimate questions considering that all of the scandals is happening during his admissional authentic records information.
will see no reason.
>> Um I believe Senator Judge Alan that the Zabalia and Cab complaint may ask the same question. Um yes if I'm not mistaken to a rule respondent evidence and to be fair if the answer of these was that evidentary um the presiding officer noticed that section one of the evidence what is the position of complaint so that's in the record while I agree with don't want to blur that to say that allegations were sufficient in no if I recall correctly your honor please attachments evidence I'm not aware of any rule in the house of representatives as far as impeachment cases are concerned issu brought up to the supreme court your honor what if you were representing by the committee to onlying council asking for 20 years I'm not questioning if there's attachment questioning whether there was question I'm not even questioning it I'm asking questions on that authentic record so I'll move on uh in the complaint against president Bong Bong Marcos I read in the pleadings the finding was the complaint failed to establish any factual network between the president why is it it definitely are presented where policy and the first question and generalized accusations >> even if I were to be representing the president Now I would not view 20 years precisely because Yes sir.
So that's my question. Thank you for answering that question. Does the prosecution agree that the requirement of alleging to the second question equally to all impeachment complaints regardless of it's the president or the co-anchor.
As I recall, members of the position of the poison because of the committee was in fact which we are contesting disclosure committs the documents they're asking your honor while itified and the house did They're asking for all all without any assertion as to why all of these are relevant requirement. If your honor, please based on what is in the articles. I >> I'll skip any questions here. But what was the exact words to that question?
Congressman Ynas, you said confidential.
So why in the case of president authority power of the household in the case of defense I will do that of vice president it's not as a private citizen so I won't ruling in the case of the president confidential certain conclusion was that the did not allege let me just go so there was a conclusion even before asking for all of this but in this is there's a conclusion that there's no necessary a discussion into what is substantial facts what's ultimate facte offense in this case um and as you said documents bore everyone with subpoena it's important so which goes to my basically well let me honor because it seems that the charge in this case unexplained >> well the masa complaint let me put And this way my question to Tony and AC party was here and I think so like if I say that I think last week commissioner or senator was here in their case I can say was 1 million 20 years they wanted the same standard 20 million versus the commissioner of Bain we want for And for the compared to this congress then I said to require 20 years of documents in your views from the impeachment issues required from president. Do you have to specify considering all of these scandals is happening during his administration? For example, you say that that commissioner allegations he actually has more than thated.
So take that answer later.
So the answer of the ultimate was my point actually because on this the defense follows strictly the rules that I read the distinction. But my question there was does that give us legal authority? evidentiary facts. No, I don't want to blur that line.
Whatever we do in the impeachment court for impeachable Supreme Court. So whatever rule we have here that would influence then how we deal with all the way to. So if you were representing now the president and >> for your honor I believe must include the following first that the person involved you still have the same amas wealth second wealth is disproportionate to that person's lawful income my next question why it can be only determined by looking at the record on the first questionable even if I were to be represented if you're just looking at 20 years I won't name the person to issue and he was telling us must be part of 50 to the second it is Let's start with bank accounts.
He named some great senators etc. 100,000.
So if one of those officials more important suddenly sold the property aside from just the money that came in your honor. So let's say the 100,000 person was sold for 5 million but then for example million 500,000 before December 31 of that year increase by 4.5 million. So if you just compare his income with that will not show many questions he has gotten well go to that question but he said 200,000 authority question the difference. I I I agree is much more than what you what I ask that now you're making context of that could spark your suspicion and continue to investigate. But you make the conclusion now and file the impeachment is valid case that uh let me just go to therefore ill without giving that person a way to explain before you subpoena every single discussion into what is substantial we call it unexplained wealth I'm sorry I'm the one Please not that the child in this case unexplained then I would not call that unexplained. I would call that let me put it this way in my question but you're introducing a new concept now unexplained wealth versus illotten wealth I agree with you like if I say wealth is that if you look at the salition unexplained that's why you ask them to explain explanation then you can million 20 years later for ill goten 20 million versus the NP in certain years it gained parts here I I saw some compared to this I don't consider even asking you for example in your view for the subpoenas or wealth so why are we getting more fishing expedition for paying super I had five companies that commissioner and they were all making money and supposedly getting that income I would agree with you which was my point is it enough just to ask that doesn't mean that there's still but my question there was both of Now the authority >> it's unexplained.
>> But but is it ill gotten or do you need more allegations to show that it was ill goten?
>> Um your honor whatever we do in the impeachment court is for impeachable based on whatever rule we have here in all the way.
We have to unexplained wealth must include we have to look at lawful income report that the we have the bank records as far as lawful I'm sorry as far as the third part by looking at the records that requesting from this honorable and express bishop provided >> if you're just looking at the sales example I won't name he was senator I think in 1987 and he was telling us 1980 or 1970 this is fishing I I'll go to the thousand. Can you tell us named some great in your name?
How do you explain to 100,000 million in our words to answer suddenly sold the property in a stealing money or so let's say the 100,000 property was sold for 5 million the evidence but then for example the 500,000 before December 31 trial is really a construction. If you just compare yourself to something that happened before it may happen that will not show you that still got that there is enough evidence to make even the court did not get to see a more than what and continue to investigate. I don't think there's any question now and file the all of us here case that evidential question you have the evidence are you fishing for the evidence without giving that person that's a question for you every single document process not only the precisely why senator unexplained wealth senator they call it many times I'm sorry in the hands of presidents and chief justices example. The reason I ask between evidence and proof is because if you have the I would not call that evidence you want the opportunity but you're introducing a new concept wealth show the relevancy I unexplained wealth is true then we have the opposite sides questionable relationship what I'm saying if you're going to case against that person for ill gotten.
Well, no evidence but like if you get all of >> certain parts here I I saw arbitrary house of I would consider without asking you evidence but for example almost anyone who's been there for a long time you will see discrepancies in why are we getting all the documents about criticism is December 31. If I have five companies, I'll ask him I'll ask and then I go into the money and supposedly I only own 1% of that company, but I'm getting half of that income. If you're agree with already as an example, I don't think there will be a question there. That's my point. Is it enough in the view of the protonation just to allege box and bigger than both of us? It's unexplained. Are we fishing there or do you need more allegations to show the answer? I'm asking you the questionable answer.
>> Wealth is unexplained.
um as you said decision that this honorable house might undergo based on the articles to reach the complaints were filed before the house of representatives.
We have to look at tasks statements worth not to look at simply determining whether we have to look at bank records as far as the determination that there was sufficient probable charge under case continuing to participate in terms the articles of impeachment that reach an expression provided in the constitution. We would just like to know the preliminary investigation conducted by a prosecutor.
The presentation of evidence even the subpoena or question should only happen when the trial I'll go to the defense after this.
human or legal terms or only if the partying the evidence or documents cannot explain people the difference between our case in our failure because based on what in a committee on justice they impeachment or the regular sufficient they look at the evidence to proceed with they may never be able to If we grant all the essentially a trial is evidential construction of something that happened not before in somehance to make conclusions as far as judgment is concerned because there is basis for the court. What do you see? You You still don't know what you see for the bank records information by the anti-money.
I don't think there's any question of the permission of the defense evidence. The question the anti the evidence or are you fishing for the evidence council? No.
>> And that's a question not only for you for every single impeachment right process billion that doesn't mean that a certain official has millions in their account. So meaning if I have a million pesos deposit on January in the house and then many times during January presidents and chief I take it out and put it in time deposit for one >> the reason I asked between one month and later it comes out is because 2% deposit 1 million 1 million in opportunity 1 million out 2 million 1 million in the deposit 3 million show we admit it so that if it's true then we can million 2,000 4 million questionable or admissible speculation. So what I'm saying is that meaning if you're going to prove all I have to do is find someone with a bank account and give them a perceptions or billions then representatives because as you mentioned the impeachment almost any public official who's been there for a long time you will see discrepancies in their end they do not show acquisition contained suspicion only deadline to provide that information and it's suspicion which when you say suspicion the last defense to answer suspicion that it's attached which is different from crime but it could be suspicious meaning 6 months coming to the court evidence already but if you cannot connect amla I don't think they're precisely defense and other people are saying aren't you fishing between so you're trying very big fishing or I don't know the answer I'm asking if you want you can answer it in any way and you need that to prove it but you know briefly narrate the procedure if we bring your Honor the house might had to undergo logic for the article conclution. That would mean that the committee on justice would have to complaints were file for the house of that level. The committee on justice was not a trial when that is not the contemplation of the procedure for the evidence whether Thank you very much when senators made that determination was sufficient to proceed with that engagement and it's harder to impeach a president we submitted in terms of the artic we did our homework just like it's not my place to tell you my evidence or not but as I said I will argue so I have One last question that I'll go first before that prosecutor because in the content of evidence what I ask even the subpoena when the trial takes place we can agree it's automatically so if it's not automatic feel gotten well the party requesting the evidence or documents in your view I mean I read this from your Why is it a fishing in our case? I have to disagree that there was any sort of fishing expedition because committee on justice and later the house for 20 years was sufficient they couldn't exactly proceed with the probable if you look at the articles of fact the vice president earned 30 million over a span of 20 years they did the vice president being in public office from 2016 in the matter by being married to a lawyer who had his own law office. We are basing the request for the bank on the conjecture of going to my unexplained appears to show that there were billions went through.
Secondly of the vice president the decision the permission of mentioned by distinguished voting council decision so the anti-money to deterine I decide not to deal with the ultimate decision rest upon this court that is the decision of certain person so meaning if I have a million pesos I take it out and put it in deposit for 1 month and 1 month later it comes out with just deposit 1 million 1 million in 2 million 1 million% 1 million pesos 1 million pesos to begin with and that is why we're saying All I have to do is find someone with a bank and give them and I might say that they have or unexplained wealth.
Precisely. This is why we want records because as you mentioned the records only reports submitted by the management which they already pertain to covered and report.
We cannot specify it only the bank records that we provide talking about agree and it's suspicion part when you say suspicion that doesn't mean necessarily suspicion that it's attached to it probable cause but it could be suspicious with reasonable certainty so meaning you go to the office in the bank account that's precise preliminary evidence people are saying might not be enough to con the office senator has 150 million in salion and then prove that you need that prove already we'll uh we'll file the case I tell the fiscal that he has two cars in that would mean that using the opportunity but I can get all the evidence so that we do not have to fish anymore when we get to this last set of question of the procedure everyone understands the vice president the issue was of the gentleman how specific or in depth senator um last two questions the the three two questions corporations myself.
We were in the Estrada and Aoyo.
>> Do you not have to pierce the impeachment in order to impeach a president considering there's no allegations in the accounts proper?
We did our homework. So it's not my place to tell you you did or not.
So I join that right and I don't even know if defense informed all of those companies what I might subpoena there between those two examples income last questioning officer >> we can agree it's I will explain following 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 uh in your view I mean I read this from your no Um maybe you can just restate why is it a fishing expedition?
>> Yeah. The the question was >> because precisely I lost unexplained wealth sir one but exactly impeachment trial from the house was actually empowered.
If you look at the articles of impeachment presupposes to the vice president over span of 20 years they did not think about not being in public office from 2013 to think about the income that generated by being married to a lawyer their professor and their basically consensus is that regulation to say my unexplained That's basically our point the decision earlier mentioned by the opposing council decision rest upon the court to determine the question the ultimate decision rest that is true that there initial decision rest with the person accusing the committee on justice now conduct a full-blown trial. No, it shouldn't. It should just evaluate the complaint for the panel of prosecutors council for respondent that was our point to begin with determined and that is why we're saying corporations involved president asking We can determine this unexplained participation we're asking for 20 years record bank records records which they already have committee on justice that republic there's no qualification that impeachment trial As I understand it, it was the better judgment of the committee or prosecutor out of sheer discretion probable cause with reasonable certainty. We were already being bombarded. Meaning you go to the fiscal left and right that you point out our proceedings that it would be more preliminary evidence to might not be enough to convict at that time but enough to say the respondent your honor. So if I go to the fiscal office or onsenator 15 million 10 years ago it was 50 million separate and therefore it's still appear in this case with the debt but I see him using for the opportunity but I records or even the public record of these companies because all they need the GIS the GI the general show exactly the extent of the interest so I think everyone understands the subpoena what's our position issue of bank secrecy or at the committee level two questions the corporation applicable exception and we are holding on to the ruling of Marquez versus considering there's no articable exceptions under the bank and there has to be a penalty before such bank documents are that is our position because there's a thank you council for the parties will now make a ruling but prior to that ruling chair would like to inquire very very briefly from all of those companies um first we might subena there Council for respondent court. So did the court note when last question presiding officer.
>> When the respondent was married to her spouse and what is the property regime governing their marriage?
>> Your honor, I believe they were married.
Uh but let me just >> check the facts just to be sure. But I think it was 2007.
>> Yeah, the the question was >> 2007. Your honor, can I get back to you on the specific date asked for that?
>> The date would not be necessary because um 2007 would mean code.
What is the problem governing as far as I know cases of impeachment?
So the house was active property regime arrangements.
That's why your honor we just want to know the position of both property which would be absolutely will make it the impeachment court will now resolve the prosecution's renewed request for dated July 626 professor and their class directed to the concerned bank and institutions and anti-mand moneyaundering council >> the court begins with the standards governing the issuance of subpoena 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 it shall contain a reasonable description of secrecy of documents or things demanded which must appear to the court as prima relevant. So if you did that there how >> settle juristp prudence has affirmed and clarified these requirements in the 2021 case of republic versus dated 21521 where the supreme court stated a sub may be issued if the tests of relevancy and definitess are satisfied the court the court must ensure that number one the books documents or other things requested must appear relevant to the issue of the test of relevancy we would like to Such must be described by the parties to be readily identified.
>> In the case of BSB group versus code number 16864, the court stated that evidence is relevant when it bears to the regulation of a fact and issue as to induce a belief in its existence or nonexist and when it relates to a collateral from which the existence or nonexistence of the principal may log.
had admitted >> these requirements are intended to ensure that the Zabina is not used as mentioned earlier and discussed earlier as for a fishing expedition as held in Apostol versus Rafael GR number 2606 dated October 1, 2025.
We are also aware of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Hg Libau versus Philippine National Oil Company GR number L13463.
A general inquisitorial examination of all the books, papers, and documents of an adversary conducted with a view to assertain whether something of value may not may or may not show up will not be enforced. Seeking to our 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 as identifiable relevant and material 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 number 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 request appeared 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 versus H does not avail the documents requested under the subpoena will not be used to allege additional independent impeachable offenses. The court will not allow this in adherence to the laid down 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 under every stage of the proceedings and there has to be pending case. The court will only allow these records to be used to establish a factual baseline against which the respondents ask interest during her present term may be inquire very very briefly from establishing such a factual baseline is recognized in settlement involving allegations that the public officer's wealth is manifestly disproportionate to the condom and financial capacity of the officer and the officer spouse regime governing as the supreme court and concern taxpayer versus Jr. dated June 2005. Quote, "Check the facts."
>> In determining whether the properties acquired were manifestally out of proportion to the lawful income of the spouses necessarily requires comparing their value with the spouse's salaries, benefits, other lawful incomes and revenues from acquired properties or business in the case of v. Bernardo GR number 1898. As far as I know, there are no >> respondents 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 cover and whether he possesses economical capability to acquire or purchase properties. The impeachment court will now resolve the prosecution's renewed request for the issuance of subpresent declared statements filed by him or her from the first day of his employment government institutions and antiundering council as of begins with the standards of determining property in section as a public officer which provides any increase in his network case of a subpoena of the books documents. Act 17 which must appear to the court of the records from 2007 to 2021 requirement 21 case of republicility.
shall remain subject stated connection to the alleged suble may be issued during the respondents present satisfied in relation only to article court must ensure number one the book must attorney subject of the controversy by him and the respondent and number two the defense object the parties to be addressed reliance on republic versus is unavailing that in the case of BNB grew only an ordinary number 16864 not statuto evidence when it bears section 8 number 6713 requires public officials to disclose their assets nonexistence including managed collateral fact their financial interests responded like these requirements are intended to ensure the opportunity and distinct mentioned earlier and discussed earlier for a fishing expedition Article 75 of the family code exclusion number 264 property regime govern also aware of the rule of the married life when the regime agreed upon is number system of properties established in general examination of all this community whether something by the mayor may not show up at the time of the not or acquired there afterever Furthermore, after a careful examination of the record imposes a string statuto acquired during the marri identifiable test.
The law is not the first time that bank records have been examined the financial records of attorney former chief justice. The Senate sitting on an impeachment court granted the prosecution's request for the production of the respondent in granting that request the court section of number 1405 any funds which expressly recognizes cases of presumed to form a single confidential community and the rights to privacy of deposit with the respondent vice as to the requested period from 2017 to emerges their assets absolute community respondents invocation of what they refer to as offenses in termsal responsibility to determine in the respective law examining the bank account the documents requested under investigating Mr. intrusionable offenses, but an absolute inadrivations against her requiring and her rights to due process every rather the court will only allow these records to be used to establish baseline but said against respondents assets transactions and business during our presence in May of the data province act expressly states that the right to privacy does not based when personal and information to asset public officers wealth furthermore proportionate to income and financial implement the processing of sensitive information public authority to constitutional determining properties acquired when necessary out of rights to the lawful income of the spouse proceedings necessarily require salaries and partnership other lawful income requests are revenue from legitimate 1982 more than sufficient to justify property decisions for fishing expedition by issue and whether he possesses the capability to acquire or purchase property in relation to article reported in his salary. Ever quote the request directed to working group of companies him or her from the first day of his employment with a government corporation are denied as his true general information sheets do not identify the respondent capacity for future prosecution failed to show his tenure as a public officer or a clearing increase in his separate jurump employee publication number 79 GR17 limited purpose. The corporate veil may not be military or usually misuse of the corporation establishing conduction to the alleged unexplained established during prot.
Now with regard to the request for subpoena separately against lawyers is granted and jointly by his respondent in adherence to objection like Mendoza. The respondent law that case number inquiry into spousal notes the prepitudation of a law firm's accounts may incidentally republic requires public official disclose their assets. The court acknowledging that of their spouses. The partners interested may seek appropriate remedies and to challenge compliance requirements separate legal personality to privacy legal implications concerns relating but this is like any client privilege which may trial provides the presiding office must draw a legal firm line foreign currency absence of a marriage foreign currency number 64 system properties is established recognizes only one exception to confidential under this regime article 91 that community property shall consist. This is also the properties at the time of the impeachment trial.
Thereafter on February 19, 2012, the Supreme Court issued the family court imposes a strict statuto 93 during the marriages.
The chief justice is disproved as well excluded there from the absence of a waiver on the depositor. The legal necessity examining the so far of the property separately or jointly as well as the corporation and partners to the respondent. Such accounts shall prove of a different regime concerning their marriage of the respecting depositors in the bank accounts of attorney carpable community property jointly owned with the request directed anti-moneyaundering council legally assets properties and funds and community entities. It is the legal mathematical for which is legal and my connection is possible to determark general information since true network of respondent husband. However, investigating JTC group of companies in Philippines corporation are denied but an absolute failure is requisite inual aggregator and said entities. The defense likewise invoke any sufficient basis information requiring the defense vigorously argues that be shielded. The court's compulsory process by the confidentiality provisions of section 80 of the anti-moneyaundering hearings as amended privacy compliance would expose officers to criminal section 16 of the expressly states that the right to privacy when person rule 5 section 22F cannot powers the processing of sensitive information personal the lawful constitutional surveillance justifying circumstances with single or ability underneath corporate partnership in the request of only foreign partnership the Supreme Court's connection to the attached by the general information ruling their bas in The articles of anti moneyaundering council is not merely a repository of reports and information on covered and suspicious transactions. The requested decisive investigation and subpoenas may issue for their denominated charges against those suspected moneyaundering activities. The criminal prosecution of such activities would be request directed to banking institution group moneyaundering corporations information required of it. Their general information sheets do not identify the respondent or other spouse or shareholders and further number 17 for clear and convincing basis provisions on confidentiality employees from 17 by number 17938. It is therefore the position may not be pierced on mere suspation fraud as well as the legislature of legislation such proof subjected to the Senate to the compress intended for another. The defense also the request for subpoena against the partnership of carpio lawyers. The same is granted to the production reservation by pointing versus pagan agency and BI law offices versus court of appeals which restrict the reports for intelligence purposes only. Chair notes the practical reality that they are not to be used as evidence any sensitive information relating to its clients and legal engagements. The court acknowledges that the admissibility partnership of lawyers are free and to challenge without particular potential legal implications on its letter attorney client privilege administrative during sharing protocol.
Furthermore, cannot rise the court with a legal right foreign currency deposits.
While the foreign currency deposits are governed by Republic number 26 which recognizes only one exception once the documents are permission of the depositor because the request is also the president 2012 corona threshold of pre2 senate impeachment will be produced GR number 20238 and joining the Senate from The defense further invises the 5year record retention period under the AMLA regulations chamber of the depositor under the MLA regulations in so 5 years a minimum mandatory retention requirement imposed on as well as the corporation prohibition against keeping or producing shall be excluded unless and until MLC invoke this limitation rather the court of the party accordingly should they be unable as to the request directed anti-moneyaundering council granted lawyers 19 section one of respondent and amending of republic act number which a prima connection including lawyers article giant money securities request organiz group of companies and pay to operate from Philippines corporation arrangements for failure at section religions be number one and disregard their separate legal personality state rule. The defense vigorously argued that the MLC exception for law compulsory process by confidentiality provision information concerns disclosure with compromise that compliance expose officers relations for breach of showing. However, the court whoever this argument unavailable unauorized disclosures by personel merely because it is not concerned is constitutionally cannot nullify the law of the powers of the note upon compful and justifying circumstances. The request for extinguish records therefore under penal code subject to the acting and their order is a claim of privilege over some local at the proper time in the landmark case of 22 724 excludes compliance at this Supreme Court explicitly attempt to sub ruling verbatim the request for subpoenas directing moneyaundering inclusion repository of reports and information on covered transactions. The partnership of lawyers and listed corporate entities is granted. The banks are ordered to submit to the clerk of charges against those moneyaundering activities. The criminal prosecution of such activities will be unduly hampered. The request if you were to prohibit from disclosing such records pertaining to Jim requires denied would be to establish function rather granted by only number 1743. Foreign currency deposits are excluded. Accept the written convisions of the respective and accept the tax council govern by legislation. Partnership of Carpersy and the 19 powers cannot be records pertaining to legis cannot be denied failing to establish records.
>> The defense also vehemently deni objects.
Finally, the court discussion of the Supreme Court ruling by 9536 agencies that a government privilege against disclosures for intelligence purposes only quote unquote and it is notic evidence informal inappropriate in the court. Therefore, the court exaband adella or rather of documents in order to order consensus methodologies and information of the impeachment to submit the records not to the printed agency on its letter on July 30 or internal religion sharing privately before the level of constitution or statuto exclusionary rule parties are directed to internal protocols designed to prevent inspection investigation photocopying they cannot tie the hands of the impeachment court once the documents are lawfully subpoenaed >> because the moving suspicious transaction reports and covered transaction reports >> satisfy the the threshold of prima fascia relevance impeachment court will now resolve the prosecution's request for subpoena dated July 6 2026 directed to the commission or internal revenue >> the defense for the indicting office recording is of sub forms an integral part of this order year period is a minimum mandatory repentance requirement postal request. It is not an absolute prohibition against the record findation identifiable rather and primaas inform the parties of their own accord.
similarly be unable to comply with the subpoena in so far as it seeks the record for the partners group of companies lawyers. Philippines corporations. Five amending prosecution.
These entities treats as covered person those including lawyers or her spouse who manage client records of your efforts do not at this time satisfy the requirement of fashion relevance under companies or create operation as a result for respondents objection to the requisition reiterates this activity basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or remissions committed in relation recognizes the statuto lawyers impeachable dependent legal professionals. The argument that information is first the documents requested and compromised client confidences will not attorney client relationship to allege additional initial that the court record does not allow contain such information compromise a protected confidence discussed in the court's ears by reference. It protects the court holds that the request records are respondent financial record only bearing the law in or prosecute alleged request for the identified financial records therefore pertaining to lawyers is granted. Accordingly subject these records are required to establish a factual respond of privilege during her present term. No January blanket invocation of lawyer also permit not without president excuse during the corona impeachment trial the salary appointment were presented the request for directed concern banking institutions covering respondent concerning separately or joint associates 2012 the banks are ordered to submit to the cler1 is therefore authorization for purposes of establish in so far as baseline only. It seeks the record shall not group of companies of cooperation is evident remain subject to the prosecution establishing the subpen only to pen relevant to article 2. The defenses and currency deposits are private act likewise under written consent as previously stated. Section of that law expressly states that council person separately jointly with respondent.
Furthermore, the partners of lawyers lawyers permits the processing of information.
to government authority pursuant to companies Philippines corporation protection of lawful rights failing to establish past irrelevance the the court is likewise unconvinced by respondents argument that the issuance of the subpoena will usurp the authority of the B under section the court is cognizant of the Supreme Court ruling aleter liabilities which remain within the province of the B a government privilege against disclosure to second public accountability under the article is not a miss to state or limit inappropriate in camera.
therefore responded in the court section of the national records. in order to prevent and exposure ruled in MLC methodologies and the Supreme Court expressly ruled in the responses77 of court 1st section 27 July 30 a.m.
obviously does not the confidentiality or turning them over to the parties. It merely penalizes the unauthorized disclosure of parties or information represented by otherwise by law. It does not production photocopying. However, marking the respondent directly invoke section 71 and other provisions of the NRC which recognizes three instances in which a taxpayers records may be open for inspection. Number one, upon order of the president will now resolve the prosecution's request for subpoena request for July 6 commission revenue upon the taxpayers's favor. A doubt said the presiding officer never raised and adopts very subpoena. The forgoing of subpoena is merely preliminary procedures of the presence of pen does not by itself authorize the disclosure that requested the requirements described rather under article all things in motion. The court upon service the B commissioner may refuse compc group of companies or comply by previously mentioned. The prosecution failed to establish showing compliance to either the respond anyction the record any under rule 21 similar to what done when the sealed box. A court also resolves by this court objection to the requis requested period. There is also a president to 2021 trial. The Senate issued a subpoena and there of commission. The requested records were produced only after the requisite presidential authorization have been obtained and during the current term of the impeachable officers under section 71 of stated earlier fails because tax records are lawfully additional in their exceptions. This correspondent appropriate stage of the procedure for the same reason. and all objections concerning the court's earlier order consistent with the same jurist prudence which are hereby adopted by information.
Court likewise hold records are not as a ruling on the capacity only ultimately not to inquire into or prosecute this impeachable act shall therefore be shall a commissioner at which time these records are required to establish a basis against assets financial transactions during her present term the request for subpoena directed to commission also without president Armen during the corona impeachment trial prior to his appointment so far the records pertain to JTC Philippines Corporation by evidence and testimony requirement of appointment as associated commissioners directed to make the court in accordance with the law 2012 on July 30 2026 at the production of records from 2021 purposes of establishing are likewise comparative baseline council on the government use for comparison for offense and or marking their admissibility and evidentiary shall remain subject to the prosecution establishing their connection to the alleged unexplained wealth during present term. You were seeking recognition earlier. The defense's invocation of the reason the privacy act is likewise unavailing. As previously stated, section 16B of that law expressly states that privacy does not apply when personal information is needed pursuant to a subpoena. There are parts about myself. Rule 5 section 22F of it implemented rules expressly permits the processing of sensitive personal information provided to government public authority pursuant to constitutional or statuto and when necessary for the protection of lawful rights of interest and court proceedings.
>> I agree with the know your >> the court is likewise unconvinced by respondents argument that the issuance of the subpoena will usurp the authority of the B under section five of the NRC.
This court is not determining the tax deficiencies or civil liabilities which remain within the province of the B. It is exercising its constitutional mandate to determine public accountability under the articles of impeachment. But may I neither does dependency of a B audit suspend or limit the Senate's exclusive jurisdiction to try impeachment cases in writing. The respondent invoked section 270 of the national intervention code to prevent the production of the requested record in the >> objection is overruled in >> request for subpoena for >> the supreme court expressly ruled in the v spouses olivan gr 168771 that >> section 270 quote of the NRC obviously does not address the confidentiality of ITRs. It merely penalizes the unauthorized disclosure of tax information except as otherwise provided for by law. It does not produ.
However, the respondent correctly invoked section 71 and other provisions of the NRC which recognizes only three instances in which the taxpayers records may be open for inspection. Sorry, that's number one upon the order of the president or authorization of the president. Number two, upon the request of money tax authority with the approval of the president or number three and all upon the taxpayers relevant documents.
>> Nevertheless, I I just like >> the existence of these statuto limitations does not at this stage preclude the issuance of the requested subpoena.
>> I don't think specific >> is of subpoena is merely preliminary procedural step and does not by itself authorize the disclosure, inspection or admission of the requested tax records into evidence. That is a common practice perhaps order only the documents upon service the B commissioner may refuse compiance very much like what they do the house I doubt to if the banks or comply by invoking any of the exceptions under the NRC previously mentioned unless it was specified >> without satisfactory showing of faithful compliance permission under the enumerated judge who wish to submit this court shall not receive any subpoenaed record to the twin orders Similar to what was done when the seal box and legard are both raising their hands.
There is also a president during the 2012 Corona impeachment trial. Submit the Senate issued a subpoena and thereafter awaited the return of records were produced only after the requisite presidential authorization had been obtained. one of the manifestations under section the same is however is not without recourse no remedy in the event the requested tax records are lawfully produced pursuant to any of the statuto exceptions for the information may the appropriate judge raise any objections concerning the relevance materiality manifestation written might be so long 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 B 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 forations of subpoena directed to commissioner Martin Armensa of the B is hereby granted.
The request in so far as it seeks the records pertaining to JTC group of companies incim Philippines Corporation is hereby denied for failure to satisfy the requirement of prim evidence. The commissioner is directed to make the appropriate return to this court in accordance with the lawing on July 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. before the clerk of court decisions that 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 andor marking as the case considering the rights of the person under trial.
You we could have considered judge starting at 2022 and if there's unexplained from I won't ask you to repeat it.
>> There may be no reason to go back and at least respect that >> because you explained both in the caucus and here.
to I'm talking about myself parts we disagree for example for uh the person brought here to trial certain records between 2022 to 2026 in my case that could have been >> I agree with the know your client opening >> well taken senator judge >> just for reference would now like to take up some administrative matters um we in receipt of a motion to set conference for the transfer of markings and comparison of the 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 9:00 a.m. Jun has given to both parties everything. Likewise, the court is in receipt page, >> the presiding officer rather as well as the Senate President of a letter of manifestation signed by Senator Senator Judge Marco citing a rule in the Arab impeachment trial vote um considered all records filed with submitted to or taxable to this including we will be resuming next will be referring this matter to the Senate as a legislative body given that it's the Senate will be amending the rules to allow participation request number because apparently as pointed out by Senator Juda during the Estrada impeachment rule was adopted and all that allows the Senate President to provide a mechanism by which a senator who cannot vote Because you did say that under any unavoidable circumstances to cast on any other relevant but since this impinges upon the rules of the court this matter taken up by the Senate as a legitimate body that is a common practice perhaps used by lawyers. Whatever decision the court said, let this be part of the ruling of the court specific shall implement some record because I doubt to if the banks becif.
I think Senator Estraated Judge Marcos and are both raising the answer. The same applies to them.
>> Allow him to attend. But um may you also refer my previous um Senator Judges Marcos Legarda and Villar Camil.
>> We can also communicate that if you're going to say it's going to be to the rules that manifestations in regard to the twin rulings of the court the same is allowed and will be made part of the records. Um the point of senator judge Allen is well taken. We shall do so at the appropriate time.
>> Um now on >> for the information of the court senator judge Senator Judge is recognized.
>> Mr. Mr. Presiding officer I'll just make a short manifestation because Alan's written submission might be so long. It might just be easier for me to make my own manifestation.
Um but it is a serious very simply Mr. President personally on the issue of the uh dates of the submission of the freedom of information.
>> What was it? 2007 2007 and the term of the president in question is 2020.
My humble position is and I'm cognizant of the case that was uh cited by the prosecution equal protection. The deciding officer used it in the articulution bill of rights to set that baseline in the interest of considering the rights of the child. you we could have starting at 2022 and if there's more than that impeachable respect that part of the region but that's our way of uh showing respect also for uh the brought here submit to the ruling wanted to explain constitutional analysis involved against Senator Judge Sher would now like to take up some administrative matters. Um we are in receip 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 9:00 a.m. Two notice is given to both parties um purpose. Likewise, the court is in receipt impeachment, >> the presiding officer rather as well as the Senate President of a letter of manifestation signed by Senator Senator Judge citing a rule in the Arab impeachment trial and wanting his to be considered chair. Um the presiding officer in this court will not 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 um >> during the Estrada impeachment trial a rule was adopted which we are confirming that allows the Senate President to provide a mechanism by which under any unavoidable circumstances to cast this vote on any matter. This since this impinges upon the rules of the impeachment court, this matter should properly be taken up by the Senate as a legislative um body.
>> Um 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 um once We convene the Senate once we convene the Senate as a legislative body. I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion um for as long as there is no suspension. Yes, senator.
>> I'll not object to that. At least just as an additional record I think senator elevated to the Supreme Court the denial of the lion to attend. But um there is a pending bill all public officials filing a station that um execute a waiver.
>> We can favor of relevant government agencies together. But if you're going to say it's going to be to the rules, that's not conflict whether or not convenant will be for tomorrow. What is your pleasure? Tuesday.
I'm sorry. tomorrow and Wednesday witness for tomorrow is attorney the NBI director and for Wednesday your honor it will be Maricia of the legislative house of freedom of information >> and on Wednesday the banking committee in addition your honor But considering that we only have Tuesday and Wednesday for trial after we also be presenting the two land bank officials here.
>> Yes. Because we issued a sub testification against these two bank officials to attend tomorrow and Wednesday.
So for the information of the two bank officials if they are listening they may simply attend the Wednesday the trial tomorrow indicates tomorrow.
Okay for tomorrow for the respondent ma'am What is your pleasure? Can I recognize your honor?
>> Yes ma'am. Regarding what the first one to set and comparison of video exhibits.
We would also ask that the be allowed an additional documents at the appointed timeitution in effect latitude. Yes.
In fact, some of the documents that we intend to mark also are copies of some of the listed items in this motion.
>> Of course, um that motion already made by council correspondent is hereby senator. The respondent sim in similar fashion prosecutor may also prosecution um change the markings or mark evidence they wish to do so in order to facilitate the trial. Thank your honor and um just to place of record whatever transfer of markings that the prosecution we'll do tomorrow is without prejudice chapter number 2026 of this impeachment with respect to the guidelines conference uh which the mark to any questions on um relevance etc. Your honor that is the understand your honor information given by this um court order your honor defense request for certified true copy of representative.
>> Thank you. um will address 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, um we shall uh make it available. But the TSM can be made available.
Your honor, may I make a station with regards to your 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. Um, >> yes your honor. I understand.
We are maintaining the presentation of NBI director tomorrow that is Tuesday July following NBI director your honor will >> there is a pending bill as well requiring all public officials filing a salute branch in favor of relevant government agencies um together with their branch and in addition by the honorable Pilia archive officer we will be determining Um before proceeding um on one more matter may require from the lead prosecutor with state that um the two intended Wednesday and Tuesday requiring their appearance um to respond to the subpoena tomorrow and Wednesday forgive me July 21 and July 22. We confirm your honor. Your honored >> our intended >> any other matters that any of the parties wish to raise >> Matibag the NBI director and for Wednesday your honor Perea of the legislative archive office of the house >> since we did not have a break and on Wednesday trial is hereby adjourned until July 21.
In addition, your honor, but considering that 2 p.m.
>> we only have Tuesday and Wednesday for trial, but after Marik Perea, we will also be presenting the two land bank officials, your honor.
>> Yes, because we issu we issued a Sabina ad test ad testificandum um 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 um trial, not the trial tomorrow, though the subpoena indicates tomorrow and um Wednesday. Would that be okay? Council for pal for proceeds, lead prosecutor, rather. Yes.
>> So attorney Melvin Mativa tomorrow and if at all, Miss Maravic Perea and Miss Maravic Pre, the two bank officials on Wednesday. I'm councel for the respondent. Ma'am, >> good afternoon.
>> 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 with respect to the motion to set conference for the transfer of marking and comparison of video exhibits. Uh we would also like to request that the respondent be allowed to also mark additional documents at the appointed time um tomorrow. Um, in effect, we're asking for the same latitude. Yes, your honor.
>> Um, in fact, some of the documents that we intend to mark tomorrow would be also our copies of uh some of the listed items in this motion, your honor.
>> Of course. Um, that motion already made by council for respondent is hereby granted. Um the respondent sim in similar fashion to the prosecutor may also um mark um or change the markings or mark um any pieces of evidence they wish to do so in order to facilitate the trial. So ordered.
>> Thank you your honor. And um just to uh place on record the additional marking of evidence and whatever transfer of markings that the prosecution we'll do tomorrow is without prejudice to section 3 administrative matter number 2026-00001 of this impeachment court with respect to the guidelines for the conduct of the pre-trial conference uh which explicitly states that um the marking is without prejudice to any questions on admissibility um relevance etc. Your honor >> that is the understanding council. Yes.
>> And the second matter confirms that >> second matter your honor with respect to the earlier ruling given by this um court on the two request for subpoena your honor defense request for certified true copy of that ruling your honor.
Thank you.
>> Um Sher 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, um we shall um make it available, but 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 >> um of witnesses?
>> Yes, your honor.
>> Subject to the limitation mentioned by Senator Judge Allen the other week if you remember. Um >> 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 Voleta San Constantino of SHA branch show branch manager and Denita Camposano of DEP ed branch manager. As to the presentation of the uh legislative archive officer, we will be determining the appropriate time when to to present her. your honor.
>> So, the court um recalls or withdraws the earlier statement that um the two bank officials may appear on Wednesday.
The subpoena stands therefore requiring their appearance um to respond to the subpoena at the city 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, um trial is hereby adjourned until July 21, Tuesday at um 2 p.m.
Roger.
Now it gets bigger. Now it gets the Senate President, the presiding officer of the impeachment court, and the senator judges.
>> The clerk of court will now call the role.
>> Call up members. The honorable senator judge Aino, senator judge Kayatano Alan, senator judge kayatano pia, senator judge delar roa, senator judge, senator judge estrada, senator judge go, set judge onos, senator judge laxon, senator judge lapid, set judge legarda, set judge maretta, set judge marcos, set judge padilia, set judge pangilan, Set judge sto II, set judge Tulfo Irwin, the judge to make a proclamation.
>> Set judge villaina, set judge, >> all persons are commanded to keep silence.
>> Judge Vain of penalty while court is in session.
>> Officers are the trial of Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte.
>> 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 trial of vice officer to the proceedings of the impeachment court.
>> We shall be led president Christopher.
>> Um before recognizing Senator Judge Padilia, chair would first like to um dispense with the journal. If there are no objections, we dispense with the reading of the journal of July 15, 2026.
We come before you today Senate City as an impeachment court mindful of the stolen duty entrusted to us and the weight of the decisions that lie ahead.
>> The clerk of court will please call the impeachment court to discern number 2026 to hold the truth of vice and fairness in every judgment we make.
>> Appearances for the parties >> keep us from prejudice, anger appearances for the prosecution, >> personal interest and political pressure.
Help us listen with patience. Speak with honesty.
>> Good afternoon.
Same appearance for the proseitution. We already the welfare of the Philippine appearances for the respondent appearance for the respondent noted.
What is your pleasure?
Remind may proceed with his manifestation people whose life by our words, our actions and our decisions.
Let the pursuit of truth strengthen our institutions and deepen our commitment to serve with integrity.
Bring healing to our nation. Where there is division, grant us understanding, patience, and unity. Where there is distrust, restore faith, there is fear and anger, give us calmness.
and these proceedings are help us move forwards remain united in fulfilling its question of democracy.
within these holes.
May truth prevail and the true voice behind.
May compassion for others be estimator instruments of your justice and all this we ask in your holy name. Amen.
Senator Judge Center Judge Kayano Center Judge Kayano Judge Senator Judge Center Judge Gogeet Judge Marcos Judge Pangina propaganda judge stoen judge judge villain judge judge how older I don't know but he literally uses Excel You must be the new analyst.
The team is quite dynamic.
10 years in the industry, different Excel, PowerPoint, the usual, right?
Anderson analysis, full the data, build the model, cross. How long does that take? 3 days for we'll talk after the meeting.
Senators um Tulfo Senator Judge Alan Senator Judge operates. What is your pleasure? Senator Judge Irvin.
>> You have two weeks to presiding officer.
>> I'd hate to let someone with your background go.
>> Ladies and gentlemen, >> but I will.
>> These impeachment court >> that obvious established.
>> I've seen that before >> to try the vice president of the republic speech.
>> Was I that loud?
>> 10 years of experience and I'm three times slower than same thing.
That was exactly impeachment court. Same speech from the same field for each task a day. My output tripled. Caroline hasn't mentioned this officer.
You have 10 years at the right time.
Nobody in that room touches you.
The sergeant-at-arms is directed to make a proclamation.
>> All persons are commanded commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the impeachment court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sarah Zberand Duterte.
The impeachment trial vice president Sarat Zimmerman Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator Judge Risa Hiveros.
Amen.
for Senator Judges.
rule of law.
Prejudice Why dadonsibility?
Amen.
Amen.
The clerk of court will now call the role.
>> Call up members. The honorable senator judge Aino, senator judge Kayatano Alan, senator judge Kayatano Pia, senator judge delosa, senator judge, set judge estrada, senator judge go, set judge onos, set judge Lon, senator judge lapid, set judge legarda, set judge maretta, set judge Marcos, set judge padilia, set judge pangilan, Set judge sto III. Set judge Tulfo Irwin. Set judge Tulfo Rafi. Set judge Villainova.
Set judge Villar Camille. Set judge Villar Mark. Set judge Zubiri. The presiding officer set Judge Esco. Senate President Gachelian. 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 duly elected presiding officer to preside over the proceedings of the impeachment court.
>> Thank you, Mr. Senate President. Um before recognizing Senator Judge Padilia, chair would first like to um dispense with the journal. If there are no objections, we dispense with the reading of the journal of July 15, 2026 um 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 Cyrus 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 honor. Same appearance for the respondent accused.
Thank you, your honor.
>> Noted. Um, Senator Judge Padila, sir.
What is your pleasure?
The gentleman may proceed with his manifestation.
Alhamdulillah.
Senator, Senator Judge Foreman Counter affidab IC.
original important original media.
Propaganda judge counter affidabit.
Fore senators. Um Irwin Tulfo, Senator Judge Alan Ketano, thereafter Senator Judge um Tito Sto are recognized. What is your pleasure? Senator Judge Irwin Tulfo. Mr. Presiding officer, Senate President, ladies and gentlemen, this impeachment court was established to try the vice president of the republic.
Impeachment courtations officerate President Impeachment court vice president evidentia testimonia Vice President Mr. Presiding Officer Senate Presidentement.
This is not the right forum and the right venue and not the right time to explain your situation.
Orang impeachment court press conference media Senate briefing room press briefing room Facebook impeachment court because the Time we waste here to defend ourselves, defend what we believe or or what have you is an injustice to the vice president.
investigation. We 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 and not here in this uh court. Mr. Presiding officer, Mr. Senate President Presiding Officer and Senate President, let us follow the rules.
Then because every minute, every hour that we waste away from the defense or from the prosecution of the the case of the pres vice president, it is injustice.
It is called injustice to the vice president to her family anguish.
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.
not waste our time to protect ourselves, to defend ourselves. This is not the right forum.
Mr. Presiding officer, Kindly, 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.
Um, earlier, Senator Judge Allen asked to be recognized. Are you yielding in favor of um Senator Judge Padilia and thereafter Senator Judge Sto thereafter Senator Judge Padilia before the chair makes a ruling on the matter?
Yes, Senator Judge Alan Kayatano is recognized.
>> Thank you. I'm happy. You may proceed, sir.
>> I'm happy. I finally heard uh Senator Judge Irwin Tulfo is concerned about the justice or injustice to Vice President Sara. That's good news. Um, regarding the waste of time here, Sabin Senator Joker Aoyo, it is useless to argue a legal point with a non lawyer.
When uh, Senator Maruetta brought that up here, Senator Miriam stood up here many times and said for four years law school.
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 etc. So legal principle today is simply integrity n 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 KO come court of tax appeals San Dieigan Bayang is being heard and the judges are being threatened you give them time. So we cannot take the impeachment out of context flood control scandal.
We consider Senator Marcoa and Senator um Jingoi political prisoners weaponized you blue ribbon committee weaponized. So Mr. President I wasn't after we brought up the problem with NBI they doubled down task force I mentioned two colleagues I didn't accuse them just like vice president Sara just because can we already ask for the bir for the uh amla and the um bank accounts So Monday accuse I did not take up your accusations here today Secretary Vince very I wasn't going to bring that up but then question Senator it was all over the news or he snob the ombbudsman I was going to stand up before Senator Irwin stood up just to say may registered male so una palang 5 minutes senator tulfo so I'll take the 5 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 just stood up to sayity judge lastly it's useless to argue a legal It's our job to clear or prosecute the the vice president.
It's our job to try and to decide. It's the prosecution's job to try to prosecute and it's the defense job to convince us. Our job is to try and to uh decide. And when you decide, you acquit or you convict. Why is that important? These are legal terms.
law student judge to clear or to prosecute. Thank you, Mr. Presciding Officer. Mr. Senate President. Thank you, Senator Judge Alan Kano. His remarks are noted. Senator Judge Sto. Thereafter, Senator Judge Padilia. Thereafter, the presiding officer shall make a ruling. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes.
>> Yeah. Um, thank you, Mr. President. the deciding officer. I um I do not have four years of uh law, but I have 29 years of law making.
And I move
Related Videos
54:37
Law
Session 5: Law, Genomic Medicine & Health Equity Conference/Webcast -- Dr. Consuelo Wilkins
UMNconsortium
234 views•2019-01-02
24:55
Law
Consider This: ICJ Climate Ruling — Holding Nations to Account
astroawani
307 views•2025-08-11
14:10
Law
The Third Gender I Legal Recognition of Intersex Community
KBCChannel1News
259 views•2023-07-09
3:52
Law
What Are Proceedings In Court? - CountyOffice.org
CountyOfficeLaw
129 views•2025-03-06
46:58
Law
Understanding the EU Electronic Evidence Package | Interview with Cristos Velasco | EP 7
DejanKosutic
816 views•2025-04-22
10:13
Law
8 Violations in ONE Day? Judge West Gives Ultimate Wake-Up Call
LawAndLogicTV
263 views•2026-04-26
2:22
Law
United States v. Navajo Nation Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
QuimbeeDotCom
589 views•2023-09-21
27:07
Law
Young Professionals: CPR Part 36 Offers with Harry Dyson
kingschambers4859
902 views•2024-04-30
Trending
5:07
Philosophy
One Must Imagine Sisyphus Happy
vlogbrothers
61K views•2026-07-21
25:15
Business
Future of Taylor Farms
maighstirtarot5385
11K views•2026-07-21
12:30
Business
The Downfall of OnePlus!
techwiser
65K views•2026-07-21
23:12
Engineering
My Friend Locked Up The Engine On His K-Swapped Bug...
boostedboiz
128K views•2026-07-21