00:00Thank you very much.
00:41Thank you very much.
01:01Thank you very much.
05:39of the Chair. First, what is the number of votes needed to convict the respondent? Second,
05:48what is the quantum of proof required to sustain a judgment of conviction or acquittal in these
05:53proceedings? Third, how strictly or liberally will this Court apply the rules in resolving
05:59questions of procedure and evidence? On the first issue, the Constitution provides that no person
06:08shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
06:14With 24 members of the Senate, a literal interpretation of this means that conviction
06:20requires the affirmative vote of at least 16 senator judges. This literal interpretation
06:26finds direct support in the 2000 case of Bayan v. Zamora, which concerned the Senate's compliance
06:32with the two-thirds vote required to concur in a treaty. Despite having only 23 incumbent
06:39senators at that time, then-Senator Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was elected as vice president.
06:46Therefore, there were only 23 senators. The Court held the Charter provides that the Senate shall
06:52be composed of 24 senators. Without a tinge of doubt, two-thirds of the figure or not less
06:59than 16 members is an unquestionable compliance with the requisite number of votes mentioned
07:04in Section 21 of Article 7. It behooves therefore all of us to observe the same fidelity with the
07:12Constitution in this trial, which affects not only the mere ratification of a treaty, but more so
07:18affects the substantial rights of the respondent, as well as the sovereign will of the people as expressed
07:24in the overwhelming mandate given to her. This is the prevailing law today, and whether we agree
07:31with it or not, we must abide by it. However, those who disagree are not without recourse, because they
07:40are without prejudice to the right of any party who holds a different view to seek judicial relief.
07:45And should the Supreme Court, who possesses the sole authority to interpret the Constitution
07:50by virtue of its power of judicial review, render a different ruling on this question, other
07:57than what the Chair has stated, this Court and this representation shall faithfully abide by
08:04that ruling of the Supreme Court?
08:06On the question of quantum of proof, given that impeachment is a sui generis constitutional proceedings,
08:12the standards of proof that govern administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings do not apply.
08:18However, this does not mean that Senator Judges shall rely solely on their conscience in deciding
08:24this case. No less that the Supreme Court also said that, quote,
08:29decisions regarding whether to acquit or convict must be based upon clear charges supported by
08:35sufficiently clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, let me be clear that the burden of proof in these
08:43proceedings rests upon the prosecution. It does not and will not shift. The respondent is afforded the
08:52presumption of innocence and has no obligation to disprove the charges against her. Finally, we turn to the
08:59application of the Rules of Court in these proceedings. Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Courts provide that
09:04the rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy,
09:10and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. We are also guided by the Supreme Court's
09:16bench book for trial judges, which reflects a long-standing principle of adjudication. In case of honest doubt
09:23about the admissibility of evidence, it is a better policy to rule in favor of admission and let the
09:29senator judges decide whether to give it little or no weight when deciding upon the case in the final outcome.
09:38But let me be clear. A liberal construction of the rules is not a license to ambush the opposing party,
09:43bypass due process,
09:45or introduce unverified evidence that would prejudice the fair and orderly conduct of this trial.
09:51Accordingly, consistent with the demands of due process, fair play, and the orderly administration of justice,
09:57the chair will construe the rules liberally so that, number one, the prosecutors may be able to adequately present their
10:04case,
10:05that the respondent may be able to rigorously test it, number three, that the senator judges may be able to
10:12weigh the evidence for themselves, and fourth, so that the Filipino people may hear the whole and impartial truth
10:19regarding the allegations against the vice president. Let us remember what our oath requires us,
10:26to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws.
10:29Hindi po tayo nandito upang itaguyod ang anumang pampolitikal na adyenda.
10:33Hindi tayo narito upang paglingkuran ang kagustuhan ng alinmang panig.
10:37Narito tayo upang alamin ang katotohanan at sa pamamagitan nito,
10:40mapairal ang hustisyang walang kinikilingan.
10:44Ang tungkulin natin bilang mga hukom ay hindi maaaring talikuran.
10:47Sa gitna nito, batid ko ang mga problema ang kinakaharap ng ating bayan,
10:51na patuloy natin dapat pa rin pagtuunan ang buong pansin at hanapan ng solusyon.
10:57Tayo ay mga senador bago tayo umupo bilang mga hukom,
11:00at mananatili tayong mga senador na patuloy na magsusumikap na tugunan
11:05ang mga pangailangan ng ating mga kababayan bilang senado,
11:09at hindi mababago ito.
11:11Kaya't aking hiling at dalangin na huwag sana malunod ang diwa ng pagkakaisang nagbigis sa atin,
11:17ganumang katindi ang mga debate at pagtatalo sa hukumang ito.
11:20Dahil anuman na magiging kalabasan ng paglilitis na ito,
11:24laging kinakailangan ang senado ang nagkakaisa.
11:27Dalangin ko po, na sana pagkalubad tayo ng katatagan,
11:31karunungan, pagpapakumbaba at pagunawa
11:34upang magampan na nating lahat ang ating tungkulin bilang mga hukom.
11:40Pagpalain na po lahat, lahat sana tayo ng poong may kapal.
11:43Maraming salamat at magandang hapon po.
11:45So.
11:46So.
11:46So.
11:54You
Comments