00:00Let me address each of the points that the defense has raised in their oral argument.
00:07They said that due process is a very simple process that the defense has been given.
00:16But there is no debate that due process applies in this proceeding just like in any other proceeding.
00:23The real issue before this honorable court is will the subpoenas that we are asking be issued by this court
00:33actually deprive the respondent of any form of due process?
00:39Ang aming paniwala po ay hindi and allow me to explain why.
00:44First of all, we are not yet at the stage where any evidence is being put in the trial
00:52or offered to the honorable court.
00:54Nandito pa lang po tayo sa punto na kung maaari bang ipaproduce natin itong mga dokumentong ito.
01:04The defense will have every opportunity to make objections
01:08if and when particular exhibits or documents are identified by a witness
01:14and offered in evidence.
01:17Therefore, wala pong due process violation ang pag-issue ng subpina.
01:26Second, the defense repeatedly cites the case of Duterte versus House of Representatives
01:33as I quote, the law of the land, as I quote, controlling daw yung desisyon na yan.
01:39But I must remind the defense of that particular case
01:44and why the pronouncements quoted are mere obiter dikta
01:49o kung sa simpleng salita po ay side comment lang.
01:54The entire Duterte versus House of Representatives case revolved around a different mode of impeachment.
02:02Kung maalala po natin yan yung one-third, at least one-third na members of the House
02:07ang nagsampa ng kaso.
02:09And the entire decision discussed how due process should apply to that mode of impeachment.
02:18Totoo, may sinabi ang Supreme Court tungkol sa mode na ginamit po ng Sabalia and the Cabrera complaints.
02:27Pero hindi po yun ang issue sa kaso ni Duterte.
02:31That issue is just a side bypass or incidental declarations of the court
02:40that are not controlling and are not the law of the land.
02:45And if you look mismo at the decision of the court,
02:49they expressly said,
02:50we are speaking of due process in relation to how these proceedings reached the Senate as an impeachment court.
02:59Not this kind of procedure.
03:02Second, paulit-ulit din po nilang sinasabi na
03:05ang ginagawa po ng prosecution ay phishing expedition.
03:11Actually po, meron ng desisyon ang Supreme Court
03:14that addresses squarely this point.
03:18This case involved a case of unexplained wealth,
03:21The case of Republic v. Rabusa, GR 208183, decided August 31, 2022.
03:30Just like here, the prosecution in that case requested subpenas for the production of bank records.
03:40Just like here, the argument was raised that this is a mere phishing expedition.
03:46In fact, hanggang sa Court of Appeals,
03:49ang sabi po ng Court of Appeals ay phishing expedition lang po yan.
03:53But please allow me to read just a portion of what the Supreme Court held here.
03:59I quote,
04:00The Court of Appeals resolved that the bank accounts of Rabusa et al.
04:04were protected under Republic Act 1405, that is the bank secrecy law.
04:09Given the arbitrary demand to disclose the contents thereof,
04:12the Court of Appeals considered the inquiry as a phishing expedition
04:17to utilize evidence against Rabusa et al.
04:20In the instant case, given that the Court orders in the form of various subpena du sestecum
04:27and ad testificandum all involved the forfeiture of unexplained wealth,
04:32the RTC was in error for not allowing petitioner to examine, inquire, and look into the subject accounts.
04:40I continue.
04:42As the present proceedings on unexplained wealth are now encompassed within the exceptions of Republic Act 1405,
04:49the Court orders subject of this case clearly fall within the orders that would enable
04:55the examination of the respondent's bank accounts as contemplated in the first exception.
05:01Thus, it comes clear that this Court cannot sustain the RTC's and Court of Appeals theory
05:07that there was no court order authorizing the examination of the bank accounts.
05:12On the contrary, records prove that the RTC issued several subpena du sestecum
05:18and ad testificandum, which required certain persons to testify in open court
05:23and present documents which pertain to the existence and identity of the subject accounts
05:28and also to the accounts, the contents found therein.
05:33I just move forward.
05:34But given the existence and propriety of the subpoenas, the evidence procured through the same
05:40should have been duly considered by the lower courts.
05:43This court cannot agree with the Court of Appeals' supposition
05:46that the examination of the respondent's bank accounts was but a mere fishing expedition
05:52to pin liability on them.
05:55Next, the defense repeatedly cites a number of laws to claim that the requested information
06:04and documents that we are asking from this court for the issuance of subpoena are confidential.
06:11Sabi po nila, confidential daw ito sa ilalim ng Republic Act 1405.
06:17Sabi po nila, confidential daw ito sa ilalim ng Anti-Money Laundering Act,
06:21pati ang National Internal Revenue Code, pati ang Data Privacy Act,
06:26ay confidential din.
06:28Pero kung titignan po natin,
06:33klaro po at malinaw po sa amin ang batas at ang utos ng saligang batas sa impeachment court na ito.
06:41You have the sole exclusive power to determine an impeachable offense
06:48and that includes the power to find out, ferret the entire truth and make your decision on that basis.
06:57I will not dwell on the exception to Republic Act 1405.
07:02That's very clear.
07:03There's an exception for impeachment.
07:06Pero paano naman po yung sinasabi nilang Section 8A ng Anti-Money Laundering Law?
07:13If you read that law, particularly that provision,
07:18it clearly refers to prohibiting leaks by members of the Anti-Money Laundering Council.
07:24It never was intended to short-circuit the impeachment process
07:31or limit the powers of this Honorable Court to find out the truth.
07:38Ganon din po ang nakalagay sa ating National Internal Revenue Code.
07:43Sabi po ng Defense,
07:45there's nothing that allows these documents to be made public.
07:50I cite Section 71, NIRC.
07:55After the assessment shall have been made,
07:57I'll just move forward,
08:00the returns together with any corrections shall be filed in the office of the commissioner,
08:05and I quote,
08:06and shall constitute public records and be open to inspection as such upon the order of the president.
08:13And in fact, during the Corona impeachment trial,
08:17the president at that time did order,
08:20and that is why this court admitted the BIR documents.
08:27Your Honours,
08:28Madaling sabihin na confidential ang ilang impormasyon at dokumento.
08:35Madaling magturo ng batas.
08:39Pero ang hinahanap po ng impeachment court ngayon at sa mga susunod na araw, linggo at buwan,
08:46ay ang katotohanan at ang layunin ay makamit ang pananagutan.
08:54Confidentiality, Your Honour,
08:57should not be the prevailing principle in this proceeding.
09:03Hindi po confidential ang katotohanan.
09:06Maraming salamat po.
Comments