SARA DUTERTE BONG SUNTAY BUKING NA SI MARY GRACE PIATTOS INILABAS NA MATIBAY NA EBIDENSYA!ANN CURTIS

Hindi raw mags-sorry si Quezon City Congressman buong suntay sa mga binitawan niyang salitang desire at imagination patungkol kay Ann Curtis. Dapat pangaraw ituring na complement ng aktres ang kanyang mga pahayag. Sa gitna kasi ng deliberasyon ng House justice committee sa impeachment complaints laban kay Vice President Sara Duterte, iginit ni Quezon City 4th District Representative Bong Suntay na hindi raw gusto ng busy na pabagsakin ang gobyerno.

 Tinukoy ni Suntay ang naging pahayag ni VP Sarah na gusto niyang tanggalan ulo si pangulong Bongbong Marcos at gusto niyang maging designated survivor ng bansa. Pero ang lahat ng ito sabi ng kongresista ay nasa isip lang ni VP Sarah. Dito na kinumpara ni Suntay ang sarili sa B dahil siya mismo raw ay may mga nai-imagine sa aktres na si Anne Curtis. Minsan nasa Shangrila ako.

Nakita ko si Anne Curtis. Ang ganda-ganda pala niya. You know, may desire sa loob ko na nag-init talaga. Na-imagine ko na lang kung anong pwedeng mangyari. Pero syempre hanggang imagination na lang yon. Pero pwede ba? Hindi naman siguro ako pwedeng kasuhan dahil kung ano-ano ina-imagine ko eh.

 Ang pahayag na yan ni Suntay gusto agad ipatanggal ng ilang congressista sa transcript of records. Madam chair, I would like to have those statements tricken from the record. Madam sexual sa sinabi ko nothing immoral. It’s just I said may na-imagine ako. I think that is not that is nothing wrong. Nevertheless I want that deleted in the record.

 Rin napigilan ng ilang babaeng congresista na bumuwelta sa sinabi ni Suntay. All you respect to my friend Congressman Bong Suntay. It is just the start of the women’s month and I don’t think that we should be hearing such comments from our dear colleagues. We are not censuring anything but we are reminding them that in fact we should support women by not saying these statements and things like this not empower women.

 If the manifestation of the justice member offends the sensitivity of the justice members then it means that we are crossing the boundaries already sir >> after all we rule here by the judgment of the justice members >> sa panayam ng programang istoriko ng one use iginiit ni sunt na analogy lamang ang kanyang mga pahayag sa deliberasyon wala raw anumang sekswal sa mga sinabi niya >> sinabi was nagkaroon ng desire at imagination.

But that’s it. Kung meron man o nag-init yung katawan ko. Well, ano yun? You know, it depends on what context you take it on. If you have a dirty mind, maaari but it’s in your mind. Ba what we are taking into context is the question. is something that you are imagining punishable. Sabi pa ng Congressista dapat mas pagtuunan na lang ng pansin ng impeachment proceeding ng BC.

 Malaki yung implication ng impeachment proceeding kaya sa analogy between Ann Curtis and whoever. Yan ang mas importante sa mga tao. Nang matanong naman kung dapat ba siyang mag-sorry kay Ann Curtis, may pahabol na banat pasisuntay. Sabi ko, “Ang ganda-ganda niya.” And I think she should take it as a compliment that I I feel and I believe that she’s very beautiful dun sa aspect na yon.

 Pero yung sa nag-iinit ng katawan. Well, mainit dito sa Pilipinas ba sir naman you do know that’s not what you meant and anybody can tell you that. You’re attributing something that that ano that I may not have meant ‘ ba. So, so what did you mean when you said nag-iinit ang iyong conclusion? Ayon pa sa naging komento ng mga netizens na sanay’ kasuhan umano ng aktres ang kongresistang sibong suntay.

Samantala, tila tukoy na rin umano kung sino nga ba sa tunay na buhay ang kontrobersyal na pangalang nakadikit sa bise na si Mary Grace Piatos. Narito ang buong detalye. Panoorin, pakinggang mabuti at kayo na ang bahalang humusga. Ngunit bago tayo magpatuloy, huwag kalimutang i-like, share, subscribe and click the notification bell for more updates and for more upcoming videos.

Maraming salamat. >> The meeting of the committee on justice is hereby called to order. Since our meeting is aation of the yesterday’s meeting, the calling of the role is here by dispense with the share the committee on justice. Today is March 4 reconvin the committee on justice on our third day of official deliberations on the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sarah Duterte.

dito our is delerate ourutyay we are hereold ofines careously wegan on march 2er to this comm the firstment the substance of the third impeachment the allegations are not matters

misuse of confidential funds bribery grave threat ilgten wealth grossly disproportionate to lawful income and acts allegedly undering constitutional orderentative jokno pointed us to disbersement documents bearing the vice president signature raising questions of direct knowledge and accountability representative Joel Chu highlighted sworn affidavit ir alle handlingsentisentur education

the several members clear trust is indivisible at that pointentative Benny Abante gave us one of the most memorable moments of the hearing. He raised two hands and said, “In essence, one hand may act separately from the other, but there is only one brain directing both hands. Dalawang kamay, isang utak, isang opisyal, isang pananagutan.

you cann divunability depending on title is convenient to the office not the we also examined statements attributed to the vice president that some characterized as conditional or not serious representative even suestarks a joke or might under imagination and that wasentative rose did not in anger in the tragicing of her husband governor Relamo there were threats

conditional at first words but words that became real her message was simple and powerful ang banta lalo na mula sa mataas na opisyal ay hindi biro threats offination weight they createar they canab institution there wereen to premonition on the first day and to imagination yesterday at one point an example involving a public figure seen in a mall was offered to illustrate the harmlessness of imagination

I will notell on that illustration I will simply this comm forant Hindi ito sinihan ito ay pagdinig sa pananagutan let me this clearly impeachment is not about premition is not aboutination is aboutitional areil the question before us is naru are theations ifage suffentanceurceedings areal

we them ifutuse auorations So today we to theth impeachment complaint endors by representative Benny Abante and DS Paulo Ortega. Some allegations may overlap with the third impeachment complaint. Others may reinforce it. Our task remain the same threshold of sufficiency in substance. So we ask is the fourth impeachment complaint

consisting of seven grounds or seven articles sufficient in substance. Do the allegations rise to the level of impeachable offenses do this complaints meet the constitutional threshold to move forward and importantly are the allegations enough to justify moving forward with the processan angulint natin ngayon and by the end of our deler is my comm all the argum from day until today 2 march 4 to the inance of the impment

is not about political convenience ito labano. Ito ay usapin ng konstitusyon. History will not ask whether this was comfortable. will ask we were faithful to our sapatoous if theal is we notitional forward. Now let us proceed. Calm but firm. Fair but fearless. Maraming salamat before we proceed to the determination

of sufficiency in substance of the fourth impeachment complaint that is Cabrera impeachment complaint endorsed by the honorable Abante and honorable Ortega we recognize the honorable B Zora. Thank you madam chair. This is for the information of everyone. We are discussing or delerating on the sufficiency and substance of theth impeachment complaint.

 As such I remind you of rule 3 section 5 determination of sufficiency in substance. It states here that the requirement of substance is met if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charge and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee. What we are looking for madam chair and dear members colleagues, we are looking for avert of the respondent that will show the nexus with the impeachable offenses as stated in the constitution.

 Kailangan po natin makita o maipakita na ang impeachment complaint ay may overt acts o yung mga ginawa mismo ng respondent at ito ay may koneksyon o mangahulugan na ginawa niya ang mga impeachable offenses sa constitution. Yun lang po madam chair. Thank you. Before we proceed we acknowledge the presence of the honorable Arnan Panaligan from the first district of Oriental Mindoro.

 At this juncture we open the determination of sufficiency in substance of the fourth impeachment complaint. To begin with, we recognize the endorsers of the fourth impeachment complaint, the honorable Benny Abante and the honorable Paulo Ortega to make their manifestation with respect to their position on its sufficiency in substance.

Madam chair, may I be allowed to please give my opening. You may proceed honorable Abante. Madam chair, the colleagues at mga kababayan po na nanonood ngayon sa ating live streaming. The constitution of the republic of the Philippines begins with a simple but powerful principle. Inuulit-ulit po natin. Public office is a public trust.

na gusto ko dagdagan ah na hindi lang po ito public trust kundi isang sa trust sapagkat hindi natin maikakaila na ito po bigay ng panginoon sa atin hindi ito slogan hindi ito dekorasyon sa ating mga dokument ito ang pundasyon ng ating demokrasya in a democrac leaders are accountable to the people in a democrac no official Constitution ga cone without accountability democracy becomes something else without accountability republic begins to resemble a kingdom where those in our answer to no one.

We are not a dictatorship but I’m sure we are a democracy where uh we believe that we must be governed where power to no one we are not to ship representatives madam chair may ask the most serious question that can be asked of a public official are you still worthy Let me be very clear thising personalities about political factions and it is certainly not about the political ambitions of someone who will run 2 years From now it is about her responsibilities to the nation because

of the office she occupies today. Madam chair it is about it is about whether the serious allegations contain in this complain deserve the full and examination the requires. The complaint endorsed before this committee present several grounds for impeachment. Let me explain them in the simplestms possible so that every Filipino listening can understand what is a stake.

Dahil kailangan malaman ng ating mga kababayan na hindi biro ang mga akusasyon laban sa vis presidente. Unang-una, the issue of transparency and unexplained wealth. Our constitution requires public officials tolose their assets the statement of asset liabilities and netwth what we call as shall end. Why is this important? Because theino people deserve to know that those who serve them are not secretly enriching themselves.

If a public official earns a certain salary but their wealth grows far beyond what the salary could reasonably explain, then the people have the right to ask questions. complain alle that certain bank accounts property transactions and cash holdings were omitted or understated in the vice president sal it further raises the possibility that her accumulated wealth may be disproportionate to her legitimate income.

If this allegations are true care and my colleagues, that is not a mere clerical error. Hindi po ito biro. This is not a joke. That is what the constitution calls culpable violation. a willful disregard of the duty of transparency. Pangalawa, the alleged misuse of public funds. The complaint cites findings from the commission on audit regarding the use of confidential funds under the office of the vice president and the department of education.

Let us put the numbers in perspective. Madam chair more than million in confidential funds were placed under the authority of the vice president across his offices and one particular transaction has raised serious questions. Php15 million allegedly encast and liquidated within just 11 days in December of 2022.

11 days in ordinary life if someone withdrew that much money and claim it was all spent in just a few days without clears without verifiable pay people would naturally ask saan po napunta ang pera oh according to the complaint some liquidation documents contain defective unverifiable pay and irregular documentation are not small accounting errors madam chair hindi po ito biro again this is not a joke when public funds are involved every peso belongs to the filipino people and when hundreds of millions are spent without clear accountability

the toandwir that is not free money that is not a money coming from our own personal pocket that is the money of the Filipino people ah the public money aking nabanggit kahapon is also a public trust kaya nga ang pangatlo betrayal of public trust This is the broadest grounds for impeachment in our constitution.

It refers to conduct that may not always fit nearly into criminal states but nonetheless shows gross faithlessness to the public trust. And one allegation in this complaint is deeply troubling madam and my dear colleagues. The vice president publicly admitted publicly admitted that she had spoken to someone about killing the president, the first lady and the speaker should something happen to her.

Later it was said that this merely was a joke. But let us be honesting the life of the head of is not something that can be brushed aside as humor particularly if this was even stated by the second holder of the authority of the land. ito biro. This is not a joke. This is not what a wife can say to the husband.

 Papatayin kita sa loob ng kwarto chair. When the second highest official in the land speaks of assassination even conditionally, said by Congress woman deamo it shakes the foundation of public trust. Because leadership carries weight. Words from high office carry consequences. Tanungin natin ang ating mga kababayan. If you had a nebor who work an employee in a government office and your neighborsted a video saying he was planning to kill you, hayaan mo lang ba or would you not want to report that person to his superiors and have him h

accountable for his actions? Once again sabihin hindi po ito biro at hindi po ito magiging katawa-tawa sa lahat. This is not a joke. Number alleations of corruption and bribery. The complaint also presentid suggesting that public funds may have been distributed through intermediaries including testimony from individuals who claim to have transported large sums of cash.

This are also allegations of payments connected to procurement decisions. Now we claimsing from who claim exported this are from who claimorted this are is congress in this country it commands us to act now some may ask why impeachment Why not leave this to the courts? The answer is simple, Madam Chair because impeachment is su generous.

 It is unique. Oo. It stands alone. It is a unique constitutional process. Criminal courts determine guilt and punishment. But impeachment answers a different question. Is this official stillit to hold the trust of the Filipino people? Thatation belongs to con and gentlemen belongs to con others will say that a previous impeachment complaint was dismissed. That is true.

That decision was based on a procedural technicality involving the oneyear barule not on the merit of the allegation. This complaint presents new evidence including issues involving SAL ends and unexplained wealth that have never been adjudicated. The constitution demands that allegations be examined.

 And finally, madam chair, my dear colleagues, some will say that this process is political. To that, I say impeachment is indeed political in the sense that it is entrusted to elected representatives. But it is not partisan. It is political in the same way that democracy itself is political. Madam chair because it involves the people’s right to hold their leaders accountable our duty here is simple is not conv is notem butine alleations the process that the constitution provides ang powerful officials

simply by attacking the process but if we proceed with fairness sobriety and respect for due process we affirm something far more important than any political victor We affirmed that in the Philippines the constitution still reigns supreme and that no one not even the vice president is above the law.

 Why? Because public office is both a trust and sacred trust. Uulitin ko but I’m chair. Hindi po ito biro. This is not a this is a solem responsibility and perhaps this words would also issue a warning to some of our colleagues that will make stupid analogies analogist. Mr. Chair, ah I would not hesitate even to question that. Ito po seryoso po ito.

 Gawin nating seryoso ang impeachment complaint na ito. Maraming maraming salamat po madam chair and my dear colleagues. >> Thank you honorable Abante. We know if the honorable Ortega wishes to deliver a manifestation as well. >> Yes madam chair. Um >> you may proceed >> join my coendorser with a short manifestation.

We endorse this complaint out of respect for our constitution and we carry this responsibility in the house of representatives. This is not about declaring anyone guilty. It is our duty and it is straightforward for us to examine the facts and determine whether they are enough and there is enough basis to elevate it.

 If the evidence supports it, we elevate it. If it does not, we dismiss it. We owe the Filipino people a process that is fair, steady, and faithful to our mandate. Maraming salamat po. >> Thank you. pronounced during day one of our proceeding we will be deliberating on a per ground basis although we will be voting on the basis of the entirety of the complaint we will now proceed to the deleration per ground of the fourth impeachment complaint please allow the chair to read article 1able violation of constitution betrayal of public trust and other high

crimes citing the following specific offenses assassination sedition and subversion of constitutional order we are now opening the floor for opinions coms and manifestations of the justice members madam The honorable France Legaspi. >> Madam Chair, just a short manifestation before I make a motion with regard to yesterday’s discussions, Madam Church just like to manifest similar to my manifestation yesterday with the honorable Lila De Lima’s um own complaint um that we confine or rather I address this to the committee members

that we confine our discussions to the facts recited. I would also like to manifest based on my observations yesterday. that we uphold the respect, the dignity and the quum that this committee deserves that our chamber is expected to have. The nation is watching us and I still ideally believe that as public officials or even law practitioners that people will look up to our characters as examples to look up to.

 And how we will act today, how will how we will treat others and speak about others will ultimately shape the values of our people especially to my fellow youth in the years to come. With this we confine our manifestations to relevant statements that we maintain our discussions to the facts recited and have a fruitful, respectful and dignified uh discussion ahead.

 With this I move that the discussions yesterdays as they are similar to the impeachment complaint today be adopted as well for the Cambrera impeachment complaint as the grounds in both complaints are very similar. Thank you madam Sher. There is a motion to adopt the discussion yesterday on the sufficiency inance of the third impeachment complaint in our today’s deleration in the sufficiency in substance of the fourth impeachment complaint with respect to similar grounds appearing in the two impeachment.

Do I hear a second? The same has been seconded. Is there any objection? Hearing n the motion is here approved. The discussions in the sufficiency in the third impeachment complaint is adopted for the purpose of theation of sufficiency in the impachment. May we know if there are justice members who wish to comment or manifest on the first ground. Madam chair the honorable.

Let me just point out the specific paragraphs in the fourth impeachment complaint that refer to the impeachable offense charge. We find the acts under paragraphs 85 to 100 11 and these are all about the assassination plot for the record madam chair. Thank you very much. >> Before we proceed, we would like to acknowledge the presence of the honorable deputy speaker Jefferson Conhun, the Honorable Deputy Minority Leader Hesus Manuel Bongsuntay.

The honorable deputy majority leader Ala Mikaela Mika M. Gonzalez, the honorable deputy minority leader Stephen James Titan. The honorable conman Jose Joboy S Aquino from the loan district of the city ofuan we likewise acknowledge the honorable deputy majority leader Vinceno Renato Luigi R Villuerte we acknowledge as well the honorable deputy minority leader Reynolds Michael Titan we acknowledge as well the honorable congressman Robert Nazal from B party list.

 We acknowledge also the honorable deputy majority leader maria Alana Samantha T Santos we acknowledge as well the honorable congressman Vinceno Renato Luigi Villapuerte acknowledge already. We also acknowledge the honorable deputy majority leader Hill ka Barangay A. Acosta Jr. And finally we acknowledge the presence of the honorable Terry L.

Ridon from the Bicol Saro Party list. We acknowledge also the honorable deputy speaker Yaser Alonto Balindong and finally we acknledge the presence of senior deputy minority leader the honorable Lima we are now opening the floor for coms further comments and manifestations of the justice members with respect to the first ground impeachment >> the honorable like to make manifestation madam chair in regards to the first uh question does the first ground of impeachment of the fourth impeachment complaint contain a recital of facts

constitutioning the offenses charge and demitrative of the jurisdiction of the committee on justice. Madam chair, I do believe the answer is yes that the first ground contains a recital of facts constituting culpable violation of the constitution, betrayal of public trust and other crimes. VP Date admitted to contracting an assassin to kill the president first lady and the former speaker of the house ofentes.

What are the recital facts of that constituteable violation of the constitution betrayal of public trust and other high crimes? The complaint contains an allegation that that BP Duterte during a live press conference which was showed yesterday. Madam chair publicly declared that she had already asked a person to take revenge and that if I get killed patayin mo si BBM si Lisa Araneta si former speaker Martin Romal No joke and no joke.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Honorable Joboy Aquino. Any other member who wishes to manifest on the first ground? If there are no other members, the honorable Suntaay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Kagaya ho ng aking binanggit kahapon, dito naman sa pangatlong pangapat na impeachment complaint, ang pangunahingasyon ng complaint ay nagsasaad respondent publicly declared during a live broadcast press conference that she has arranged for a person to kill President Marcos Jr.

 the first lady and the former speaker speaker Martin Romales if she is killed. Ito ang ginawang basehan ng article 1 para sabihing may culpable violation of the constitution, betrayal of public crust at other high crimes. Pero kapag sinuri ito sa ilalim ng rule 3 section 5 ng rules of procedures ng impeachment proceeding, may malinaw na problema sa sufficiency in substance.

 Ang requirement ng rule ay may recital of facts constituting the offense charge. Hindi sapat ang statement na kontrobersyal or politically shocking. Sa complaint na ito, ang allegation ay speech lamang. Walang alegasyon na may actual hitman na kinuha. Walang walang maipakitang may agreement nga o conspiracy na ipatupad ito.

 Wala rin naipakitang may payment o arrangement na ginawa. in order to facilitate such statements. Wala ring maipakitang weapon procurement o alleged over act. Sa ilalim ng constitutional law, malinaw ang doctrine na kahit incidary inflaming or shocking ang speech, ito ay protected under the the freedom of speech.

 naipailalim to sa Brandenbergs versuso na sinabi ng korte that the speech can only be punished if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action. Ang parehong principle ay kinilala sa Philippine Jurisprudence tulad ng Salonga versus Cruz Pano kung saan sinabi ng Supreme Court na kahit radical o disturbing a statement ay hindi punishable kung walang imminent and lawful action.

 Sa madaling salita, kahit pa matapang, galit, exaggerated ang political retoric, hindi automatic na ito ay krimen. Ang complaint ay umaasa sa interpretasyon ng statement hindi sa factual acts constiting constituting reason, edition or conspiracy. There is a Latin maxim conclusion nonprobat factum. Ang ang conclusion ay hindi proof ng fact. Thank you.

>> The honorable SDML Noy Defensor. >> That’s wrong madam chair. We are discussing on the sufficiency and substance and the irrelevant illogical statements made in defense has no point because this is a direct threat. to the life of the sovereign and the allegation that the vice president has contracted an assassin who is prepared to kill the president whether or not there is a condition as alle in both complaints I have seen theiden all theorting thisation that weceed Madam ch the honorable is that a motion honorable

defensor >> yes it’s a motion to proceed to the next allegation >> I object madam chair second >> let us give a chance let us give a chance to everyone to speak on each ground and my good friend and whom I respect so much should be minded to withdraw that because precisely there are others who wish andif any member of thece comm our ch until spoken in this committee so we appeal to my good friend to withdraw that so that we can >> only because the honorable rufus rodez has requested me to withdraw i would gracefully withdraw my madam chairman

>> that is a statesman you see mr chairman our deputy is a states Just for the record the motion to proceed to the next ground has been formally withdrawn. >> Uh thank you madam chair. >> All the manifestations of the justice members are duly noted. At this juncture we recognize the honorable Nazal and then Honorable Chua.

>> Thank you. >> About me >> and then Honorable Rodriguez. >> Third. That is fine. >> Good morning everyone. Thank you madam chair. Consistent with the constitutional threshold articulated under article 11 and the ultimate fax rule applied during the PBBM proceedings last February 4, 2026, I respectfully submit that article 1 of the fourth complaint fails the test of sufficiency in substance.

The allegations rely principally on public statements characterized as an admission of contracting an assassin. However, even assuming hypothetical admission of the pleed facts, the complaint does not set forth the essential elements of an indicable offense. There is no identification of alle an alleged assassin, no pleaded meeting of minds, no overt act towards execution.

No defined consideration and no operational step taken beyond speech. Conspiracy requires implementation elements. Requires overt acts. Culpable violation requires a specific willful breach of a constitutional duty. None are pleaded with particularity. General invocations of a constitutional order and oath taking cann substitute for a clearly identified constitutional provision willfully violated under the standard consistently applied in the PBBMsoric however alarming not become impeachable offsent ultimate facts establishing execution

according Article 1 rest on inference and conclusion rather than pleaded ultimate facts and is in and is insufficient in substance. I so manifest. Thank you madam chair. Thank you. Next is the honorable Chua. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, mukhang nalilito po yung mga kasama natin. Wala po tayo dito para determine yung criminal aspect ng complaint.

 Nandirito po tayo para tignan natin kung pag binasa po natin itong fax, ito po ba papasok as impeachable offense. Now, let me clarify this. Ito pong article 1 makikita po natin sa paragraph 83 pababa. At dito po sa paragraph 85, dito po clearly and expressly binanggit po dito yung kataga na binanggit po ng ating viso po to already ask a person to take revenge and that if I get killed patayin mo si BBM si Lisa Aranet.

at si Martin Romalez. No joke, no joke. Now, paano po ito papasok bilang impeachable offense? Sabi po dito sa same impeachment complaint. Sabi po dito, makikita natin to sa paragraph 91 to 93 93. Ano po to? Meron daw pong culpable violation ng constitution. Now, ano po yung specific provision sa ating constitution ang biniolate? So, makikita naman po natin to sa article 7 section 5.

 Dahil dito po sa article 7 section 5 nakasaad po dito ng ating saligang batas. And I madam before they enter on the execution of their office the president the vice president or the acting president shall take the following oat or affirmation. Ang second paragraph. Ito po yung kanilang oat. I do solemly swear or affirm that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as president or vice president or acting president of the Philippines.

 serve and defend its constitution, execute its law, do justice to every man, and concentrate myself to the service of the nation, defend its constitution and execute its laws. Definitely, yung pagbabanta po is not a form of executing its laws. And therefore there is a clear violation and culpable violation of the constitution.

Second, sinabi po dito at binanggit din po dito sa complaint betrayal of public trust. At dito po dinefined under paragraph 94 the Supreme Court has defined the trial of public trust as a catch all ground in compassing acts that constitute gross faithlessness against public trust. Tyranical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism and gross exercise of discretionary power to the prejudice of the public interest.

Gross faithlessness. pagtataksil sa tiwala ng publiko. Definitely yung pagbabanta po sa ating papangulo sa first lady at sa ating speaker ay maliwanag na pagtataksil dahil itong mga itong tao po yung pangulo po natin ay pinagkatiwalaan at hinalal para mamuno po sa ating bansa. We have to look at the surface. Hindi ko po sinasabi na guilty na dahil yung guilty or not yung trial po yan sa senado.

 Ang nandirito lamang po ay by mere narration of facts. Sa pagbabasa lamang po ba nito eh meron po bang grounds na na-violate? I submit madam chair. >> Thank you honorable Chua. Before we proceed, we acknowledge the presence of the honorable congressman Jose Manuel Tadeochel Jokno from Akbayan Party List. We acknowledge as well our deputy speaker honorable Raymond Democrito C.

Mendoza and finally we welcome and acknledge our senior deputy speaker the honorable Ferdinand L. Hernandez, of course from the second district of South Cotabato. Thank you for coming to all the cons. Now we proceed. We acknowledge the honorable Rodriguez. >> Uh thank you madam chair. Article 1 is based on three uh three uh grounds for impeachment.

First is the culpable violation of the constitution. second betrayal public trust and third other high crimes to support this three grounds for impeachment as found in our constitution it has three acts that are alleged to support this three and which are assassination plot sedition and subversion let us go first to subversion not as a crime itself but as a support to the three either of the three and so version Mr.

 Madam Chief was precisely made illegal in 1937 under the Republic Act 1700. However, subversion like in this case the state subversion of constitutional order subversion Republic Act 17 was revealed precisely in 1992 during democratic times in 1992 Republic Act 7636 removes subversion it cannot be a crime nor a support now to the three grounds that we have completely reed in 1992 the subversion aspect of an act of a Filipino then we have sedition madam sedition is an act of publicly appris and tumultously engaging in acts to really remove the

established government and officials. So it cannot be because Sarah Duterte did not publicly rise with arms to be able to remove the present government. Probably what they want to say is inciting to sedion ah because sedition itself is governed by our article 139 of the revise penal code rising publicly and tumultuously.

 If you go to article 142 this will be inciting to but there is also no recital of facts that the vice president made speeches or made publications to say let us remove the present administration nothing in fact yesterday if you see the video he was he was just present when her father spoke. Second when Kibolo had a mass and a gathering but she did not speak against the president government so these two are out definitely out so version of constitutional order is no basis to say there is violation of the constitution nor sedici or even citing

to sedition so we know go to assassination plata here we go this is what what is cited in the first paragraph on factual allegations is under the page 28 paragraph 85. Ito na already ask a person to take revenge and that if I get if I get killed patayan mo si patayin mo si BBM Lisa Raneta at si Martin Romales no joke now we have to distinguish madam chair between conditional threat and threat with a condition this is defined by the Supreme Court.

 What is a conditional threat and what is threat with a condition? Example of a second one. Threat threat with a condition I will kill you if you give me Php1 million. That is a threat with the condition. That still there’s still liability. However, conditional threat like I’ll kill you if I am killed. That is a threat from the grave socall.

Even chair, even the late presidential legal advisor, the late one pin. Really, I saw him in an interview. He said there’s no crime because it is conditional. The entire you know statement about killing somebody only arises if you are dead and both of them are very much alive. However, this is now the situation the one who said it is the vice president.

the one the person where theal threat is being being being mention is the president the first lady and the speaker and so this committee will have to therefore decide whether that reaches the sufficiency of form and substance thank you madam chair >> madam chair the honorable samora madam Sam chair, I’d like to uh make another manifestation regarding article one uh the first yeah article 1 of the fourth impeachment complaint.

 I was part of the prosecution team in the last impeachment and I handled this and we saw the evidence of the NBI. In fact, for the information of everyone, this went to the NBI. The NBI filed a case and they have the evidence. Now that threats were conditional, is inconsequential. We heard what the honorable Janice De Gamo said yesterday and I believe that well we were all touched and maybe disturbed by what she said yesterday.

 She said that family received threats conditional at the start but in the end the threats became real and her husband was murdered. The video that we are talking about was viewed by everyone including international media, international persons. happened on 20 23 of November 2024 uh early morning and uh we all saw how the vice president hurled expltives and uh publicly admitted that she had set into motion a clear plot to assassinate the president the first lady and the former speaker of the house.

acts madam chair are stated as I said earlier in paragraphs 85 to 111 of the impeachment complaint it is clear that the overt acts that we are looking for are in the impeachment complaint the video that we are all talking about was mentioned in in the annexes Or was it um yes it was mentioned in the annex of the complaint and for everyone’s information this is what we calls or the thing speaks for itself heard what the vice president said and again these are mentioned in the impeachment complaint so we do not go

into the elements of the different crimes of their revised penal code. But the mere act, Madam Chair that she fed these words and that she contracted an assassin is impeachable in itself. That’s all Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other member who wishes to manifest? Chair, can I be allowed to speak? >> This will be your winding up as well, the honorable abante.

>> Yes. >> After this, we will be proceeding to the second ground. recognized upon hearing the statement of uh Wagesman Rufus, medyo umiikot po yung aking isipan tungkol dito sapagkat nakalagay naman sa impeachment uh complaint natin yun bang grossly inconsistent with the dignity of our office? Question is a proper dignity ba yung statement ni vice president Sarah when it comes to assassination threat na hindi lamang assassination threat madamere assassination plot sapagkat meron na po siyang hinire na assassin sinabi niya eh

o sinabi niya hindi joke yan pangalawa yun pong sinasabi nating gross exercise of discretionary powers yun pa ay kasama pa sa tinatawag na discionary powers ng vice president to threaten the president. Hindi na pinag-uusapan dito yung sedisition o saka yung subversion. Ang pinag-uusapan po dito ah yung dignity ng office ng vice president, yung design powers ng vice president.

 Yun po ba ang tinatawag natin? Dapat ba ah na ito ay gawin nating baliwala madam Sher? While the VP may claim her remarks were not serious a highranking official threatening the life of the head of state is a national Thank you. Now we proceed to article 2 of the fourth impeachment complaint. Please allow the chair to read.

 betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption among the offenses cited are misuse and malvation of confidential funds violation of joint memorandum circular number 2015-01 findings and falsification of docum now we the comment and manifestation of theceers Madam chair the honorable Rodriguez is not here so I just go ahead because he would have been first always on article 2 it is betrayal public trust and corruption I would just like to take accordated yesterday 34es the dep and as I have stated and I remind again members of the uh committee on justice

that uh we have no jurisdiction over actuations of the former secretary of the department of education so page 934 we uh say that the statement of corruption by grossly abusing theary authority over confidential funds appropriated to the OBP that’s fine but the statement Dep is totally out of the jurisdiction of this committee, the actuations of the former secretary then on page madam chair on page 36 once again to 3.

3 three paragraph 125 million in depted confidential funds in the late 2022 2023 again dep we cannot have jurisdiction over dep the case of duterte versus house representatives clearly state that the impeachable offenses must relate to the acts of the position and the office where the person is sought to We impeach and we’re not going to impeach the secretary of a department here but there is an allegation against her as the vice president.

 So that is page 36 and then on page 38 we have here 129 paragraph. It says a random sampling of uh receipts and acknowledgement receipts by the OBP and Dep revealed numerous defects. Once again the statement of uh Dep is that it is beyond our jurisdiction and then also 132 several receipts OVP and DEP DepEPED should not be included.

Now page 39 there is this allegation of uh physical distribution and third party delivery is use of depth ed vehicles and personnel again this is about dep it could not be part of our of our uh our investigation on the allegations of the impeachment and so madam those are my observation on article 2.

 Thank you very much. Meanwhile, the chair wishes to remind the justice members while we value the significance of all your arguments, we resolve already to adopt the discussion we had yesterday in the determination of sufficiency in substance of the third impeachment complaint for the purpose of our deliberation on the sufficiency in substance of the fourth impeachment complaint.

 We therefore encourage the members to raise new matters. Members who wish to manifest the honorable Chua and then Honorable Tino Madam Chair. >> Honorable Joboy Aquino and Honorable Chell Jam >> and Honorable Abante. >> Madam Chair >> and honorable Nazal. Honorable Chua first. Thank you, Madam Shar. Madam Sher, uh as already manifested yesterday, I stand with my position that uh the vice president we should not distinguish between her uh position as Secretary of Depice President by again citing citing the constitutional provision that under the constitution the vice

president may be appointed as member of the cabinet. and such appointment requires no confirmation. So meaning to say that the appointment of the vice president as secretary of Deped is concurrent position. Hindi po siya ma-appoint doon if she were not the vice president. And secondly, siya nga lang po ang nag-iisang vice presisang uh ah cabinet secretary na hindi na hindi na kailangan ng confirmation precisely dahil siya po ay vice president.

 And thirdly, in addition to those uh statements uh and for the information of the body, the vice president as secretary of the Dep is not receiving any allowance or emolument as Secretary of Dep. Therefore, and it is very obvious na kaya po siya nandon doon again because of her position as vice president. Having said that, uh Madam Chair, I would like also to point out that uh by the Perusal, from the Perusal of uh the second argument, sabi po dito, ito pong ah second ground angorded on the uh allegation that the vice president has committed betrayal of public trust

in graph and corruption. Now, papaano po pumasok ito? Kung babasahin po natin doon sa paragraph 123, sabi po dito, “On 20 December 2022, landbank check number 224 244027 in the amount of 125 million wassued to the OBP and cash at the Landbank Show Boulevard by S. Gina Acosta. So dito po sa paragraph na to makikita natin wala ba pong participation ang ating vice president.

Now ito pong paragraph 1 to3 this should be read in relation to paragraph 134. Dito po sa Madriga Afid Chain of Chain of Costody Dahil ito pong draw dito sa paragraph 1 3 na 125 million na iningcash na sinasabi na nilagay po sa mga multiple bags na nakalagay sa paragraph 125 na binigay po kay Dante Lachica ay binigay po kay Madriaga.

At dito naman po si Madriaga, sinasabi po niya na ito daw daffle bag, apat na daffle bag na kinuha niya ng cash sa Ultra Pasig City noong December 20, 2022. Take note of the date, Madam Chair. Ibig sabihin ito rin yung araw kung kailan iningcash yung 124 125 million. Siya daw ay nag-deliver nitong apat na dffle bag sa various recipient including a mayor in Laguna, an office in Timog, and a vehicle left at the Ombudsman parking compound for a tribal.

 At this point, wala pa rin pong participation ang ating vice president. Now, paano po napunta dito? Paano po to naging impeachable offense? Makikita po natin yan sa paragraph 150. Kasi dito po sa paragraph 150 nakalagay po dito the OBPSDO’s testimony that they were instructed to turn over cash to intermediaries which is Nolasco to Madriga at the direction of respondent Sarah Duterte supports direct liability.

 So dito po pumapasok yung participation ng respondent. Kaya po dito po pumapasok yung grounds which is grave which is uh betrayal of public trust and graph and corruption. So with that by the pagbabasahin lamang po natin yung facts makikita po natin na may sufficient in substance. That’s all madam. >> We just want to share to the justice members that the Madriga Affida David referred to by the honorable is part of the attachments I think of both the third and theth impeachment complaint.

That’s for the guidance of the justice members. Before we proceed we would like to acknowledge the presence of the honorable Zia Alto Adjong from the first district of Lanao del Sur. We also acknowledge the presence of deputy majority leaderine Remulia and we acknowledge as well the presence of Deputy Speaker David JJC Suarez.

To proceed we would like to acknowledge to recognize the honorable Job Boy Aquino. >> Thank you madam chair. Earlier Madam Chair we’ve heard that uh from our good friend uh Congressman Rufus Rodriguez that uh we cannot as education secretary we cannot impeachure or no because they covered. But uh all I want to say madam chair is it is the same person also that is being accused of a crime to commit murder.

No, what I’m trying to say isang tao lang to pero ginagawa niyaung ginagawa niya sa OBP ginagawa niya rin sa Dep. That’s all. Simple lang yan, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Binasa po niyo itong mga nakalagay sa article 5 regarding unexplained wealth, saN violations, bank records and financial forensics.

Nakalagay lahat sila based on assumptions in preliminary documentary leads. Hindi po solid proof. It keeps saying that a forensic review will uncover unexplained assets. But as of now, wala naman napakita yung complaint. Wala man lang attachments na kahit ano to prove itong sinasabi na unexplained wealth. First, the complaint talks about supposed discrepancies in the salens.

But differences in reporting do not automatically mean someone was dishonest. Hindi po ako abogado uh but I’m an economist bago po ako naging congressman, alam naman po natin na property values change. Assets can be bought or sold at different times to immediately label this as pattern of concealment without clear proof of intent is unfair and speculative at best.

 Madam Chair, second, kailangan daw po ng ah forensic financial review to reconcile declared income and assets sa Sal. Identify unexpained inflows or transfers and trace the disposition of public funds alleed to have been diverted. Hindi ba dapat po trabaho ito ng complainant na mapakita ng ebidensya sa reklamo niya para para maging sufficient in substance.

Third, the complaint points to large cash disbersements from confidential funds and say these correlate with certain financial movements. But yung mismong complaint admits in paragraph 237 that correlation is not conclusive. Suspicion based only on timing does not prove personal gain. So magi-impage po tayo ng vice president na binoto ng 32 million na tao na Pilipino dahil lang sa suspetsa.

Third, the mention of intermediaries, third party accounts, corporations or relatives is likewise made to sound suspicious. But many lawful transactions are done through representatives or business entities. These arrangements are common and legal. Dapat man lang may katibayan oweba na ginagamit ang mga ito para sa mga illegal na gawain.

 Wala naman pinakita na kahit anong dokumento sa complaint. Fourth, alamin madam chair na ang bank secrecy is not absolute pero hindi natin ito dapat ma-set aside based on unverified claims. Investigation should be based on real and credible evidence not on fishing expeditions in the hope of finding something. Most importantly, ang impeachment ay isang seryosong constitutional process.

 Kaya dapat it should not be based on guesses or on what someone thinks might be discovered later. The burden is on the accusers to prove actual unexplained wealth. The vice president should not be expected to disprove mere suspicions at the end of the day chair article 5 is asking people to assume guilt based on what might be found later not on what has clearly been proven now.

 Allegations and suspicions are not the same as evidence. Thank you madam chair. >> Next is the honorable Rodriguez. Yes. Thank you madam chair. respect to our new deputy minority leader she tried to to link to explain article 5 zero recital of facts when I explain wealth and violation back records and financial forensics by going to statement of that’s right we can that paragraph 76 are this recital facts.

 I will read Madam Chair and it is for all of us to determine whether this a recital of ultimate facts constituting the offense. It says here public records and investigative leads indicate existence of bank accounts. What are these public records? What are these inficative leads? You know, madam chair, you can see here the fourth impeachment complaint is really a big volume of annexes.

There is no annex uh on this particular what are the public records nothing. What are the investigativ? There has to be statements. You cannot just say for example that there is draft and corruption without also stating the ultimate facts constituting that. You cannot just say malersation canot do that.

 There has to be statement of now you say public records. What are these public records to give us an indication that there a crime has been committed that off been committed? Nothing. And then it says other financial movements very vag other financial movements there a lot of financial movements in the stock exchange in the in the trade and commerce of people so what are these financial movements and they say that are disportate disproportionate to respondent lawful income and not fully reflected in her sal which sal 2022 2023 24 25 no statement here is a general blanket

statement these are not recital of facts so therefore paragraph 76 does not support article 5 so once again there is absolutely no that’s only insufficient nothing no substance in article 4 thank you madam chair madam chair >> honorable readon >> um we’d like to before indulge Before we proceed, may I just acknowledge first the honorable Paulo Henry M.

 Marcoleta from Sagip Party list. Before before indulging the our good coi Congressman Rodriguez on the public records that is actually looking for I’d like to read for the record uh the articles of impeachment of the corona impeachment process in which former Chief Justice Renato Corona was convicted and salen was one of its basis.

 No, it was a very general narration of the facts and um I think this should be the same standard because this has undertaken the entirety of the process of impeachment from the express root towards final conviction at the level of the Senate. So I will read it. Madam chair 2.4 respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having illgotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits.

It has been reported that respondent has among others a 300 s me apartment in a posh Megaworld property development at the fourth in Taguig. Has he reported this as he is constitutionally required under article 11 section 17 of the constitution in statement of assets and liabilities and netwth salen is this acquisition sustained and duly supported by his income as a public official since his assumption as associate and subsequently chief justice has he complied with this duty of public disclosure.

 We are stating it for the record uh madam chair because um this is the precise wording of the corona impeachment articles of impeachment which had proceeded to the Senate and had resulted in a conviction madam chair. So I think it is very clear that uh uh this is the process that we have to undertake and what uh the endorsers would want to undertake during the process of full proceedings can be undertaken.

 It does not require what is what our colleague is actually asking today. it would be good had the annexes been there but is actually not in fact required for full impeachment proceedings to proceed but I think the ccks of the matter is what is the definition of unexplained wealth uh madam chair because I think this is something that uh we would want to be able to talk about as well yun pong unexplained wealth mga kaibigan meron pong very specific definition yan sa ating pong mga batas a public officer and employee acquires property during

their incumbancy. So if we are talking about the vice president from 2007 from her first uh um uh year in public office to date and second element is the amount of property is manifestly out of proportion to their official salary and other confirmed local income. And at this point I will indulge our colleague about the public records on which this committee can actually take judicial notice of.

 So I will read to the record Madam Chair the totality of the networt worth of the vice president from 2008. 2008 file December 31, 2008 networth 18,493,6179 networth 18,281 >> May we be clarified honorable Ridon of the reference from which you’re reading? >> Well, we we have the references of the salens themselves >> that is the salend of the vice president and some of the public uh available public information relating to the >> we know specifically which document >> well I will present for the record the most recent salend that had been um uh

filed ah released by the ombudsman madam chair I think it is something that can be flashed on the screen but I think what should be noted is the original salen netwth which was 18 million madam 18 million >> with the indulgen of theceers we will be flashing on screen the document which is the reference of the honorable ridon yeah but to have a starting point madam chair the the original sal 2008 is 18493617 it was filed December 31 2008 so we will be flashing the salens for 2023 and 2024 um May may we request madam chair that

the secretary be directed to flash. >> For the record the salen from which the honorable ridon is first referring to is the 2008 which provides for an 80 million net worth and uh with the indulgence of the members we will be flashing the 2023 and 2024 salend. Uh madam chair this is the 20 23 salen. We can proceed to see um the totality the netwth madam chair 2023 can we go down further please? A little bit down. Ayan, networth po.

Networth for 2023, 508,841. This is for 2023. Madam chair, can we flash 2024 secretariat, please? >> Kindly flash the 2024. scroll down first. >> Okay, that’s correct. for 2024 released by the office of the ombutsman netwth of the vice president is can you put it a bit further please >> down please >> 88 512,000

3702 ah22 so we are submitting it for the record because these are public records which our colleague had actually asked And if if we will base it from the original at 2008 to the 2024 madam chair it is an increase of more than I think 1,200%. So we leave it to the justice committee as to whether or not we would consider it >> there was an increase of Php10 million.

Madam Chair >> sorry >> from 77 million to >> No, the original Salen at 2008. >> How much is the 2008 salen? >> 18 million. >> 18 is it 18 or 80? >> 18. >> It’s 18 million. Do you have a copy of the salon also of 2008? >> We we will we will locate it madam chair. >> So we’re stating for the record being shared to us by the honorable Ridon that for 2008 salen the net worth is 18 million.

 And now we are shown by 2023 and 2024 salen which shows net worth of 77 million and 88 million respectively. Do you have any additional manifestation? >> That is correct, Madam Chair. So, we leave it to the House Committee and Justice to make a determination on whether the comparison between the original SAL at 2008 and the current SALEN at 2024 constitutes unexplained wealth which is essentially part of the impeachable offenses that we would want to uh proceed with at this point.

 Madam chair Madam Chair >> the honorable Rodriguez >> two points first point is that the uh the impeachment proceedings in the committee on justice against Chief Justice Corona this representation has attended four since 2007 impeachment complaints which I have been a member of this committee since 2007 the first complaint was against the president President GMA 2007 I was new dismissed then we have Gutierzita signed and then we have corona on record madam chair precisely this representation voted no to the corona complaint because to me there was no

sufficiency of substance and in the in the resolution I voted in the proceeded because the majority of course with the present at the time pushing for that she was she was he was therefore impeached. In other words, the proceedings there are completely different now. I don’t know that during the time they allowed it but here our chairman is making sure that we follow the requirement of substance that there should be sufficiency informstance and there should be recital of facts.

Well, in that particular case I lost I was against it. It proceeded but I voted no I did not want Chief Justice Corona to be impeached. Later on it has come out that there have been lobbies with senators to impeach corona you see so therefore that is what happened before but now madam chair we are with you you are presiding this very well and we want to have the real recital of fast constituting the offense charge and certainly based on this and based on the complaint and based on the annex wala now a new new

is injected by our our friend stating about about 2023 2024 is that particular has that been authenticated by the ombusman do you have a copy of authentication the ombusman I don’t >> honorable ridon >> I don’t think that is required it is public record madam there’s no automatic there’s no automatic authentication, public record, all the records there has to be authentication when you go to a proceeding like this is the justice committee of this country of the house of representatives.

>> Madam chair, >> you cannot just state that it’s a public record. Now, where is it? Where is it? Is it found in the complaint? Because we are limited, madam chair, madam chair to the complaint and to the unexess. Here we are. Here we are. We’re limited with this to inject something based on the statement and there is no authentication that we have.

 There is no such thing as as automatic authentication. In any proceeding you have to authenticate so therefore there can be unless there is an authentication and the obusman is already has already certified that we cannot recognisance of that particular injection of this new matter in the hearing. Thank you madam. Just a >> honorable Dilima first and then honorable po and then honorable Redon.

>> Authentication can be done at the evidentiary stage no need for authentication at this point. The committee can subpina can request copies of those ends from the official custodian the office of theman. So authentication at this point is not needed. Thank you. >> I disagree with may I be just one sentence our verification.

 I will read now the verification verification of this. What does it say in the verification of >> personal knowledge or authentic records? >> Yes. Precisely we have to have uh ultimate statement of facts personal knowledge of the complainant attorney Cabrera. And then of course here we go. I will read now the verification of Attorney Cabrera.

I think it was just one sentence madam he finishes with his three sentences already madam chair. My three sentences is considered as one sentence. Right madam sir >> the allegations number three the allegations of in the complaint are true and correct based on my personal knowledge or based on authentic documents see that’s very clear nobody can debate with that and if congressman says this is authentic that his word we have to get authentic documents signed and certified by the office of the ombossman >> yes >> thank you madam chair Honorable

sentences >> that was one paragraph already the honorable Ridon >> Madam Chair it’s a very basic question it is that is an irrelevant response. You know why? Because firstly I am not the complainant. I am not bound by the verification. Hindi ba? Why are you talking about uh authentic records? Uh I am speaking as a house member and participating in House Committee and Justice.

 The point is not on point, Madam Chair. And uh my question is basically are we being challenged that what has being what is being presented is actually not the true representation of the salen of the vice president for 2023 and 2024 kasi parang ganon ho yung dating and um more importantly um linabas ho ito.

 Nakita ho ng bayan yung 88 million nalaman po ng Salen. Ting ko that should not be considered madam ch the honorable po and then the honorable sunay and then the honorable dilima madam chair we can move forward already I just want to clarify for the the body whether or not the honorable congressman Rufa Rodriguez is asking us to ignore uh the presented earlier is that what we’re being asked >> that is precisely to answer.

 Can I answer >> you’re recognized >> you cannot inject anything not found in the complaint and the annex because then the requirement that he attorney Cabrera is of personal knowledge and or with or authentic that is very clear in all verifications authentic we go back to honorable po >> well then to that point I believe that we should move into merit so that that can be admitted as part of the evidence no in this situation Well, he he’s right to ignore it.

 But Madam Chair, just one last one. >> Yes, you may proceed. >> Well, he’s right to ignore it, but firstly, he was challenging the availability of public record. So, we were submitting the public records actually available. And uh secondly, uh I’m not asking that it be made part of the complaint. This is being submitted for the consideration of the body that it is untrue that public records relating to unexplained wealth do not currently exist.

 It exists and we had been uh submitting it for the record madam chair irrespective of uh whatever uh documents that had not been submitted by this complaint. Madam Chair I submit >> the honorable Santay. >> Thank you madam. Madam chair, well, Congressman Ridon stated two facts. First, tama yung sinabi niya, he’s not a complainant, but he’s trying to introduce new documents which he wants us to consider.

>> Second, eh yung iyung ah the document he is trying to introduce is not through the knowledge of uh the complainant. So we cannot consider it here because it’s not part of the complaint. >> The honorable Dima, >> thank you madam chair. Nothing prevents this committee from directing the production of Salens as ential documents in determining the facts of this proceedings. Impeachment is generous.

 We have all the plan or authority to do that just to arrive at the correct conclusion. just to substantiate and establish the necessary and essential facts. That is my position, Madam Chair. Just like any other manifestation of the justice members, the document presented by the honorable Ridon forms part of his manifestation.

>> And therefore, all of your manifestations including the documents which were shared will become basis of the judgment of the justice members in determining the sufficiency in substance. That might not be introduced as an evidence yet but that might be introduced as part of the manifestation of the honorable honorable.

>> Thank you madam chair. So I just like to point out in our rules of procedure and impeachment proceedings under section 7. kasi napag-usapan natin yung mga salin and other documentary evidence. So it says here that the committee shall have the power to issue compulsory processes for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and other related evidence.

 So ibig sabihin po non again at this stage we’re just merely looking at the recital of facts whether it constitutes an impeachable offense. So I would just like to proceed with my manifestation. So madam chair on article 5 the committee’s task is not to decide whether the respondent actually has unexplained wealth.

 The question is the complaints a coherent theory of liability. supported by alleged facts which if true could amount to an impeachable offense. Ed, article 5 alleges that public records and financial leads point to assets and financial movements inconsistent with lawful income and allegedly not fully reflected in sal ends which if assumed true raises a serious accountability issue under the salend regime and supports a theory of betrayal of public trust.

Kaya lang po meron po tayong case. I just wanted to also um share with the committee the case of salig uh where the Supreme Court held that it causions that errors in do not automatically equate to dishonesty, absent, intent and due process. Kasi na-mention din po kanina it’s unfair daw po na kung merong ah hindi nabanggit sa salin ay automatically liable na dapat yung impeachable officer.

So those considerations are matters for later stages. Again hindi po natin sinasabing guilty ang ating impeachable officer at this point in time. We are merely looking at sufficiency in substance. yung which later on pwede po mag-submit yung ating impeachable officer or respondent ng kanyang mga defenses. So at this stage the pleaded allegation is that the omissions are material and link to unexplained wealth indicators which would it would appear would be enough to cross the threshold of sufficiency instance. Thank you, Madam.

Madam CH, >> thank you honorable Samora. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Two points. First, this is regarding uh the ultimate facts that must be alleged in a complaint and this goes for all of the allegations in the impeachment complaint. Salita versus Honormal Magtalis GR number 106429 June 13, 1994 states a complaint only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action.

 Ultimate facts has been defined as those facts which the expected evidence will support. As stated by private respondent, this term does not refer to the details of probbative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It refers to the facts which the evidence on the trial will prove and not the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of those facts.

 Second point, Madam Chair, we were discussing lengthenly about the public documents, the sal public documents follow the self authentication rule. They do not need further authentication. They should be enough and their existence as public documents is by itself their authentication. Thank you madam chair. >> Honorable Del would you like to make manifestation? >> That is exactly my point also madam chair about the selfhentication rule relative to public documents and are public documents and we’re able to get them they are public documents. Thank

you. >> I think we have made an ample exchange of arguments in as far as concerned. But I wish to reiterate that while it is true that we cannot introduce evidence at this stage those ends which were flashed by the honorable ridon forms part of his manifestation and therefore just like any other manifestation of the rest of the members of the justice committee who service basis in our determination of the sufficiency in substance.

 Now we proceed to the next ground. Please allow the chair to read article 6 other high crimes pattern of abuse threatement interference with civilian supremacy the offenses specifically cited includes admission capability equ grave threat pattern of conduct demonstrates willfulitment and official responsibility har confidence we the fleration theation to the article 6 i think it will now be unnecessary for us to further tackle and treat this ground as an arle and that goes through with respect to the next the last

article article 7 because as I was reading it it’s actually just a sort of a discussion a summation of the discussions the earlier discussions on the five grounds other high pattern of abuse threats incitment interference with civilian supremacy. They refer to the same set of facts and allegations.

 The same is true with respect to article 7. Article 7 says pattern of abuse, cumulative misconduct, doctrine, remedies, prayer and verification. So this discussions are not strictly and technically discussions of grounds or articles. Drafter of theing it best to include this in the discussions but they need not be discussed, considered and treated as separate grounds or articles.

 So for me since there have been sufficient discussion already about the first five grounds in relation also to our discussions yesterday with respect to the third complaint I think this is unnecessary to further deliberate on this because it’s clear to me they did not be considered as articles but just a discussion a summing up a wrap up.

 So I move madam chair to uh dispense with the consideration or deliberation on both article 6 and 7 for the reasons that I stated. I so move. >> Second second chair. I second. Before we act on the motion, let us put on record the manifestation of the honorable dilemma that the sixth and sth ground are summation of the five prior grounds and therefore the discussions that we had in the five prior grounds including the discussions we had yesterday already with respect to similar grounds support already the needed deliberation.

with respect to the two last ground that is the sixth and the sth ground we state that to form part of the transcript of records of our deleration today so there is a motion to dispense with the deliberation of article 6 and article 7 for the purpose of the determination of sufficiency in substance of the fourth impeachment has been seconded.

>> Is there any objection? Hearing none, the motion is hereby approved. The deliberation for the sixth and sth ground are dispensed with that concludes the deliberation for the determination of sufficiency in substance of the fourth impeachment complaint. Having said then the members are reminded to be ready to vote for the sufficiency in substance first of the third impeachment complaint followed by theth impeachment complaint.

 Madam Chair Madam Chair >> before we proceed we recognize the honorable senior deputy speaker Ferdinand Hernandez >> Madam chair this is just a manifestation before we uh vote on the sufficiency in substance at this juncture it is important toarify for the what this vote means equally Our vote on the sufficiency andstance of the impeachment complaint is not a determination of guilt or innocence on the part of the vice president we are not conducting a trial today nor are we rendering a judgement on the allegations contained in the complaint

what the constitution requires us at this stage is far more limited but noneeless essential. The committee is merely determining whether the allegations assuming them to be true for purposes of evaluation are sufficient in substance to warrant the continuation of the impeachment process. If the complaints is found sufficient in substance it does not mean the president is guilty.

What it means is simply the process will move forward to the next stage where hearings will be conducted, evidence will be presented and the parties will be given full opportunity to be heard. After the proper hearings and evaluation of evidence the house will then make appropriate determination either to dismiss the complaint for lack of sufficient basis or to elevate articles of impeachment to theate where the constitution mandates that the impeachment trial shall ultimately take place to stress our vote today is not a verdict ofilt

the process for the house is not arena for trial by publicity but institution bound by process fairness and the rule of law our duty today is simply to allow the as mandated by the constitution to take its proper course. In undertaking this duty, we assured the public that the process will be impartial, fair and faithful to the constitution with full respect for the fundamental right to due process of all parties involved.

 In this way we protect not only the rights of the respondent but also the integrity of our democratic institution and the rule of law. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> The chair understands the difficult decision that the members are about to take and that the chair commends the courage, the disposition, the candor of the members who are present right now to exercise this constitutional duty.

Madam chair, point of inquiry. What’s the point of inquiry of the honorable patiernos? >> Madam Sha, before we vote, may we get the guidance of the chairperson um as regards to to the complaints wherein if you have multiple grounds and you agree to only some of them >> under the rules we will be determining the sufficiency in substance on the basis of the entire impeachment complaint.

 What is being determined is the sufficiency inance of the complaint and not the individual grounds we adopted the deleration that we had in the prior impeachmented that is by going over all the grounds only to give a better and widertive to all the members to come up with their judgement If the members have no other matters to raise we shall proceed to vote.

the honorable Rodriguez. uh in the in the PBBM uh impeachment we allow the honorable uh Lila de Lima to also state that in one of the ground he concurs in one and then the other he she she would not because we for example this representation madam chair >> if I may interrupt the honorable Rodriguez >> yes >> the disparity as to the position of the honorable Dima respect to the is with respect and impachment but not to theidsarified but can we put on the records for example if for example in the third complaint which we are going to vote on

uh what will happen if four of the grounds we for example in my case just to be able to state two of the grounds there is substance four of the grounds no jurisdiction no substance how will that be reflected >> with all due respect the chair has stated already that the rule provides the determination of the sufficiency in substance with respect to the impeachment complaint and not to the individual grounds again we deliberated per ground only to give a better perspective to the justice members in the determination of the sufficiency in

substance in other words areingers will man with to aective ground of the impeachment complaint. With that we shall proceed to vote. The chair is now to hear the motion on the sufficiency in substance of the third impeachment complaint that is father sabia impeachment complaint endorsed by the honorable congresswoman deima.

The honorable is recognized. Madam chair, I move that we vote on the sufficiency of substance on the complain. May we be given the opportunity to make it more accurate. We need to declare either sufficiency or insufficiency in substance of sabalia etal complaint. Madam >> the honorable Asidre.

 Madam chair I move that we declare sufficient insubstance of impeachment complaint. There is a motion to declare the sufficiency in substance of sabalya etal impeachment complaint. >> The same has been seconded by the honorable Tinho and the honorable Zamora. Do I hear an objection? No one is objecting objection. Madam >> an objection has been registered by the honorable Sunai which means we will proceed to vote.

Those who are in of the motion please raise your right hand. Can you hire your hands just to make sure that the secretariat will come up with an accurate counting? Secretariat, are you okay?

Domogan is here and raising his hand as You may now put down your hands. Those who are who are not in favor of the motion, those who are not in of the motion, please raise your right hand. It’s okay. Those who abstain, please raise your right hand. All right. So that concludes the voting secretary the result please for the record. The honorable Renco just

came and she’s registering as well her vote for the affirmative that is in favor of the motion. Hindi ka na. The vote of Arn Panaligan is counted already per the secretariat with 54 votes in the affirmative one in the negative and zero abstention the chair declares the sufficiency in substance Sabala al impeachment complaint.

 So now we proceed to the fourth impeachment complaint the Cabrera impeachment complaint endorsed by the honorable Abante and the honorable Ortega. The chair is ready to hear the necessary motion. Madam chair Rodriguez >> before the vote once again I would like to ask there are five grounds on the fourth complaint this representation believes in the dismissal no substance in three but two has substance how do I vote honorable Rodriguez it is clear in the rules that we are voting on the entire impeachment complaint the sufficiency in

substance has to be determined on the basis of entirety and not on the basis of the individual grounds. In other words, it’s either you vote in favor of the sufficiency or not in favor of the sufficiency chair, I always agree with the chair. >> Thank you. The chair is ready to hear the necessary motion.

 Madam chair, >> the honorable Samora. I move to declare the impeachment complaint filed by attorney Nathaniel Cabera as sufficient instance. There is a motion to declare the impeachment complaint of Cabrera sufficient in substance. Do I hear a second? >> The same has been seconded. Is there any objection? >> Madam Sir, once again objection.

 The same has been objected to, we shall proceed to divide the house. Those who are in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. Secretariat, are you okay?

You may put down your hands. Those who are not in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. You may put down your hand. Those who abstain, please raise your right hand. That concludes our voting on the fourth impeachment complaint. Secretariate result please with 54 votes in the affirmative and one vote in the negative with zero abstention the chair declares the cabrera impeachment complaint sufficient in

substance so rule madam chair >> the honorable samora >> in view of the finding of the sufficiency and substance of the two impeachment complaints I move to issue notice to the vice president or the respondent the impeachment complaints to file her answer to the impeachment complaints within a non-extendable period of 10 calendar days from receipt of this notice. Thank you madam chair.

>> There is a motion for the issuance of notice to vice president Sarah Duterte for the filing of her answer to the two impeachment complaints within the none-xtendable period of 10 days. Do I hear a second? >> Second. The same has been seconded. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the motion is granted. The committee is directed to issue the necessary notice to the respondent.

 If there are no other matters to be discussed in this committee hearing or to be manifested by the members, the chair is ready as well to hear the necessary motion. >> Move to adjourn, ma’am. Move to adjourn. Our today’s committee meeting is here