00:00Mr. Presiding Officer, Honorable Senator Judges, magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat.
00:05The issue before the impeachment court today is not whether you possess the power to issue a subpoena.
00:14The real issue is whether such power may be exercised in a manner that disregards due process
00:22and compels the production of documents and information beyond what is allowed by law.
00:30Your Honors, jurisprudence provides that for a subpoena to be valid, it must comply with twin requirements of 1. definiteness
00:42and 2. relevance.
00:44Ibig sabihin po noon, dapat particularly describe po ang nasasaklaw ng subpoena at dapat may direktang kaugnayan sa ginagawang paglilitis.
00:58Your Honors, when a subpoena becomes oppressive, when it is unreasonable,
01:04and when it is merely issued for the very purpose that there is a hope that somewhere, somehow, something incriminating
01:16will come out,
01:17it ceases to be an instrument of justice.
01:22It becomes a weapon of a fishing expedition.
01:26And that is exactly what confronts this very court today.
01:30And that is why the defense has taken the position that the prosecution's requests must be denied.
01:38Allow me to explain, and let me begin with constitutional points.
01:43Our first point, Your Honors, due process.
01:48Impeachment is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure with political characteristics.
01:56It is sui generis, but it is not a purely political proceeding.
02:03Ibig sabihin po noon, the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause,
02:10applies in all stages of the impeachment process.
02:15Your Honors, those are not my words.
02:18Those are the words of the Supreme Court in Duterte versus House of Representatives.
02:24And that is the law of the land.
02:27When we speak of due process, we offer a simple proposition.
02:33That evidence must be present to support each and every accusation.
02:40Pero hindi po yun yung nangyari dito.
02:43Balikan po natin kung saan tayo, kung saan nagsimula itong proceeding na ito.
02:48I have here with me, Your Honors, copies of the Sabalia and Cabrera complaints.
02:56Both filed before the House of Representatives.
02:59Both accused the Vice President of allegedly amassing unexplained wealth.
03:06Both with voluminous attachments.
03:09Yet not one.
03:12Attach a document to support that accusation.
03:16Not a single financial transaction record.
03:20Not even a single SAL-N.
03:24In fact, it was only after these complaints were filed,
03:29and more significantly, only after the respondent had filed her answer before the Committee on Justice,
03:37that that Committee started searching for evidence to somehow support these accusations
03:44through, again, the issuance of subpoenas.
03:49Your Honors, we objected then, and we are still objecting now,
03:53because with all due respect,
03:55the position of the defense is that is the very definition of a fishing expedition.
04:02Your Honors,
04:05In our legal system,
04:07it is not permitted
04:08to accuse
04:11now, and then just
04:13look for proof later on.
04:15That is not how
04:17due process works.
04:19Hindi po dapat natin
04:21pinapayagan yan.
04:22Moving on to my second point,
04:25Your Honors, let's talk about
04:26relevance.
04:27It is our position that the requests of the prosecution
04:32are in fact fatally overbroad.
04:37Bakit po fatally overbroad?
04:40An impeachable offense is an act or omission
04:44committed while the public official is occupying an impeachable office,
04:49not before being elected or appointed to such position.
04:55Again, Your Honors,
04:57those are not my words.
04:59Those are the words of the Supreme Court
05:02in Duterte
05:03versus the House of Representatives.
05:06That is controlling,
05:08and that is the law of the land.
05:11Yet here, Your Honor,
05:12today,
05:13the prosecution is requesting
05:15for documents
05:17spanning almost two decades,
05:20almost 20 years,
05:22dating as far back
05:24as 2007.
05:26Your Honors,
05:28it is a fact
05:29that noong 2007,
05:31ang respondent
05:32ay vice mayor pa lamang.
05:34definitely
05:35not an impeachable office,
05:38Your Honors.
05:40How is that relevant?
05:42It is the position of the defense
05:44that it is not.
05:45In fact,
05:47what that is,
05:48is an unlimited search
05:50throughout a person's financial history.
05:54That should not be allowed.
05:57Your Honors,
05:57if a subpoena
05:59is not narrowly tailored,
06:01it is oppressive.
06:03For these reasons alone,
06:05we are of the position
06:07that the request
06:08should already be dismissed.
06:11Nonetheless,
06:12if the impeachment court
06:14were to extend
06:16its utmost liberality,
06:18which the prosecution
06:19have asked for
06:20in their memorandum,
06:22we'd like to point out,
06:24Your Honors,
06:25that Congress itself,
06:26the Senate
06:27and the House
06:28of Representatives,
06:30enacted laws
06:31that specifically
06:37prohibit
06:38the disclosure
06:38of this information
06:40that the prosecution
06:41is asking for now.
06:43Let us go through them
06:44one by one.
06:45Let's start
06:46with RA 9160
06:48as amended
06:49by RA 11521,
06:51which is the
06:52Anti-Money Laundering Act.
06:54Your Honors,
06:55the prosecution
06:55is asking for
06:58covered transaction reports,
07:00suspicious transaction reports,
07:02financial intelligence reports,
07:05again,
07:05spanning
07:06almost two decades.
07:08However,
07:09it is clear
07:10under Section 8A,
07:12which we are flashing
07:13on the screen right now,
07:14nabawal po yun.
07:17Disclosure is prohibited
07:19under this provision,
07:20Your Honors.
07:22It is in black and white.
07:25Meron po bang
07:25exception?
07:27Wala po.
07:29Impeachment
07:29is not
07:30an exception.
07:31Had
07:32Congress
07:33wanted
07:33to make impeachment
07:35as an exception,
07:37madali lang naman pong
07:38ilagay yun
07:39sa batas.
07:40Pero hindi po
07:41yun nagawa.
07:42Now,
07:44in fact,
07:45I also have here
07:47copies
07:48of the
07:49Financial Intelligence
07:50Report
07:52and
07:53another report
07:55from the
07:55AMLOC,
07:56the Information
07:56Management Analysis
07:57Group,
07:58which were already
07:59marked as exhibits,
08:00Your Honor,
08:01and it's in the
08:02records of the
08:03court.
08:03Exhibit D2-8-P1,
08:09where it says
08:10specifically
08:11that
08:14the information
08:15should not be
08:16used as evidence
08:17in formal
08:18proceedings,
08:19Your Honors.
08:21Clearly,
08:21Your Honors,
08:24to
08:25compel
08:28AMLOC
08:29officials
08:30to disclose
08:30such information
08:31would be
08:32to compel
08:33them
08:33to violate
08:34the law.
08:36Let's move
08:37on now
08:37to the
08:37tax records,
08:38Your Honors.
08:39Prosecution
08:40is asking
08:41for tax records,
08:42so let's look
08:42at the
08:43tax code.
08:44Section
08:45270
08:46of which
08:47criminalizes
08:48disclosure
08:49of
08:50taxpayers'
08:52information.
08:54Meron po
08:54bang
08:55exception
08:55sa batas
08:56na ito?
08:58Meron po,
08:59but it is
09:00limited.
09:00Kasama po
09:02bang
09:02impeachment?
09:03Hindi po.
09:04That is
09:05very clear.
09:06Again,
09:07Congress
09:08wanted to
09:09put an
09:10exception
09:10for impeachment.
09:11They could
09:12have easily
09:12done so,
09:13but they
09:14did not.
09:15Now,
09:16Your Honors,
09:16let's go
09:17to
09:19Bank
09:20Secrecy Law,
09:21RA
09:221405.
09:24The
09:24state
09:25policy has
09:25always been
09:29to favor
09:30the secrecy
09:31of bank
09:32deposits,
09:33Your Honors.
09:33Dito,
09:35while we
09:36recognize that
09:37impeachment
09:37is in fact
09:38an exception,
09:39Your Honors,
09:40we submit
09:41that this
09:42exception
09:43is not
09:44automatic.
09:45Meaning,
09:47hindi
09:47parkit
09:47may exception
09:48for impeachment,
09:49pwede na
09:50kaagad natin
09:51buksan
09:51ang lahat
09:53ng bank
09:53records
09:53na hinihingi
09:54ng prosecution.
09:56Why?
09:56Because,
09:57Your Honor,
09:57this exception
09:58does not
09:59dispense
10:00with
10:01constitutional
10:02safeguards.
10:03It does not
10:04abolish
10:05the right
10:05to due
10:06process.
10:07So,
10:07dapat po,
10:08meron pa rin
10:09tayong
10:09basihan.
10:11If you look
10:11at the articles
10:12of impeachment,
10:14wala naman po
10:15doon na
10:15nagsasabing
10:16yung sinasabing
10:18unexplained
10:19wealth
10:19coming from
10:21even if
10:22it was
10:22an illegal
10:22activity
10:23ay pinasok
10:24sa isang
10:25specific
10:25account.
10:26In fact,
10:27Your Honors,
10:29this exception
10:30does not
10:30automatically
10:31mean
10:32that we
10:32should
10:32permit
10:33a
10:33phishing
10:34expedition.
10:35Yun nga
10:36pong mga
10:36bank account
10:37numbers
10:38na nakaspecify
10:39sa request
10:40for the
10:41issuance
10:41pa sa
10:41Pina.
10:42Ang aming
10:43posisyon
10:43po dyan,
10:44yan po
10:44ay nakalap
10:45doon sa
10:46illegal
10:46disclosure
10:47with all due
10:48respect na
10:49ginawa ng
10:49AMLAC
10:50before the
10:50Committee
10:51on
10:51Justice.
10:52And then,
10:53Your Honors,
10:54they are also
10:54asking for
10:55the bank
10:55records
10:56of the
10:57spouse.
10:58Your Honor,
10:59the spouse
10:59is not
11:00an impeachable
11:01officer.
11:02And therefore,
11:03the spouse
11:04is not
11:05covered by
11:06this
11:06exception.
11:08Again,
11:08Your Honors,
11:09we should
11:09not allow
11:10this.
11:11In closing,
11:13Your Honors,
11:13the prosecution
11:15has repeatedly
11:16invoked
11:17accountability.
11:19Your Honors,
11:20we agree
11:20with them.
11:21No one
11:22is above
11:22the law.
11:24But in
11:24the same
11:25manner,
11:25no one
11:26must fall
11:27below
11:27or be
11:29outside
11:29the protection
11:30of the
11:31law.
11:32Impeachment
11:33is indeed
11:33a powerful
11:34constitutional
11:35tool.
11:37But,
11:37Your Honors,
11:38impeachment
11:38is not
11:39a magic
11:40word or
11:40a magic
11:41wand
11:41that one
11:42can just
11:43wave
11:43to
11:44transform
11:45an
11:45illegal
11:46act
11:46into
11:47a
11:47legal
11:47act,
11:48to
11:49transform
11:49unlawful
11:50access
11:51to
11:52lawful
11:52access.
11:53That is
11:54not what
11:55the
11:55Constitution
11:55contemplates.
11:57That is
11:58not what
11:58the laws
11:59enacted by
11:59Congress
12:00contemplate.
12:01And that
12:02is not
12:02something
12:02that the
12:03Honorable
12:04Impeachment
12:04Court
12:05should
12:05allow.
12:06We
12:07submit,
12:08Your Honors.
12:08Thank
12:08you very
12:09much.
Comments