00:00Actually, I have read the consolidated, verified answer, and I call Telam with caution.
00:06And certainly, I would express my disappointment with the legal team of the vice president,
00:14who has 16 lawyers who have signed this particular answer.
00:20In an answer, the grounds which were averted to in the third complaint, six grounds, should have been answered one
00:34by one.
00:35Because there is a finding by the committee of sufficiency in substance of the six,
00:41although I would like to state that of the six, I find that those with substance sufficiency is the first
00:50and the fourth ground.
00:52The other four are not.
00:53But however, since the committee voted for the entire third complaint to be sufficient in substance, it behooves upon the
01:05lawyers.
01:07I have been, you know, I was a practicing lawyer before, and quite some time, and I have met many
01:15of the lawyers of the vice president.
01:17They're very good.
01:18However, in this case, there is no answer to the six grounds of the third complaint,
01:29and also no direct answer to the five grounds.
01:33There were eight grounds in the fourth complaint, but the six to eight complaints were found by the committee to
01:39just be corroborative to the first and the fifth grounds.
01:43In the fourth complaint, I find that the first two has sufficiency in substance that three do not.
01:53But I, therefore, am surprised that in this particular case, there is no discussion per ground,
02:00and, therefore, would not give us the real answer of the respondent to the six and five grounds,
02:10six in the third complaint, five in the fourth complaint.
02:16However, Mr. Chair, reading this, there is, indeed,
02:20I'm only interested in the answer on the 125 million confidential funds in 2022 of the vice president.
02:35This is page five of the consolidated answer.
02:46For this 1225 confidential funds, the only answer of the vice president is that,
02:54in its deliberations of the Sabalia and Cabrera complaints,
02:58this committee disregarded the petition for review in Sarah Z. Duterte v. Nilda B. Plaras,
03:07docketed as COA CP No. 2024-0194,
03:13before the Commission on Audit CoA, Commission Proper,
03:19notwithstanding that the subject of that appeal is the notice of this allowance involving the same
03:23confidential funds that constitute the principal basis of the accusations therein, significantly.
03:30The matter remains pending and unresolved,
03:33and any ruling of the COA would, in any event, remain subject to final judicial review of the Supreme Court.
03:40A bare answer to definite allegations, ultimate facts in the third complaint and the fourth complaint.
03:51So, but this also would, at the same time, provide the committee the obligation to hear the case,
04:03to hear the COA, and precisely, because I have heard the vice president say
04:09that Mary Chris Piatos will be explained.
04:13The 11 days will be explained of the 125 million.
04:16But, unfortunately, it's not here.
04:19But, I would say that there is an answer,
04:23but precisely, it does not have the facts that would constitute the real answer,
04:29so a hearing would be required on this particular matter.
04:33There is, therefore, sufficiency of ground for the ground of the 125 million confidential fund.
04:43Next, the next one, where I am, there are just two grounds that I'm saying there is sufficiency in substance.
04:50The next one is the threat against the president, the first lady, the speaker of the house, Martin Romualdez,
05:02by the vice president of the Republic of the Philippines.
05:05The only answer here is on page 9, paragraph 53.
05:11It is the only thing that would answer those ultimate facts stated in both the third complaint and the fourth
05:22complaint.
05:23And may I read, therefore, the answer of the respondent to this threat.
05:29It says here,
05:30The impeachment complaints, likewise, brazenly accused the vice president of entering into a supposed contract to kill.
05:39Yet, they fail to present any threat of proof that any such contract ever existed.
05:46Instead, complainants rely on exaggerated conclusions dressed up as fact.
05:52With a very short answer, Madam Chair, this, therefore, requires, to me, a hearing on this particular issue,
06:02which is ground number four in the third complaint and ground number two in the fourth complaint.
06:07So, as far as these two, Madam Chair, I find there is sufficient grounds to continue with the hearing of
06:16this case.
06:17And since the others were not also, Madam Chair, the others were not clearly answered to, ground by ground,
06:25then the decision of the committee stands that there is sufficiency and substance in all the six grounds under the
06:35complaint,
06:36the third complaint, and the five grounds under the fourth complaint.
06:41Thank you, Madam Chair.
06:53Thank you, Madam Chair.
Comments