IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF VP SARA DUTERTE (DAY 21)

9:39 Huh? >> Yeah. Please all rise for the arrival of Senate President, the presiding officer and central judges of the impeachment court.

10:33 The sergeant-at-arms is directed to make a proclamation. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the impeachment court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sarah Simando. The impeachment trial of Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator Judge. foring.

11:20 Fore! Foreign! Foreign! forident. Amen. Amen.

12:05 >> The clerk of court will now call the role. Roll call up members. Senator Judge Aino, Senator Judge Kayano Alan, Senator Judge Kayano Pia, Senator Judge Del Rosa, Senator Judge Ersito, Cento Judge Estrada, Senator Judge Go, CT Judge Ottover, CT Judge Laxon, Cento Judge Lapid, CT Judge Learda, CTO Judge Marcoa, Central Judge Marcos, CT Judge Padilia, Cetto Judge Pangilinan, Cetto Judge Stoi, CT Judge Tul for Irwin, Cetto Judge Tul for Rafi, Central Judge Judge Villan Nova setto judge Villar Camille setto judge Villar Mark setto judge Zubiri the presiding officer set judges the senate president judge gachalian

12:55 with 17 senator judges present the chair declares the presence of a quorum in accordance with the rules of procedure on impeachment trials the chair now recognizes the duly elected presciding officer to preside over the proceedings ings of the impeachment court. >> Thank you, Mr. Senate President. Um, if there are no objections, we shall dispense with the reading of the September 1, 2026 journal of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court and shall consider the same as approved. The clerk will please call the case before the impeachment court. >> Case number 004-2026 in the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sarasto. >> Appearances of the parties. Good morning, your honor. Same appearance for

13:40 the public prosecutors. We're ready >> for the respondent. >> Good morning, your honor. Same appearance for the respondent accused. >> Good morning, councils. Um, today you will present um who again? Um, honorable Cha. >> Attorney Michael Po, your honor. >> Okay. Who will be handling um the um direct examination? Honorable Cha. Your honor, may we request attorney Benjamin Tlosa, Council for the Public Prosecutor, to be recognized for the presentation of our next witness. Your honor, >> attorney Benjamin Tlosa Jun Jr. is recognized on the part of the respondent. >> I will stand for defense, your honor. Thank you. >> Attorney Sheila.

14:28 >> Good morning, your honors. >> Good morning. Call your witness council. Um just uh for formality your honor appearances I'm attorney Benjamin Siguosa Jr. respectfully appearing as counsel for the prosecutors under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutors. We're ready pro to proceed with the examination of attorney Michael Wesley Poa. Your honor >> so you're one of the council for the panel of um prosecutors. >> That is correct your honor. >> The clerk will kindly um situate attorney POA to the witness stand.

15:32 The clerk is um directed to administer the oath. Please raise your right hand. You Michael Wesley Ta do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and vice president shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I help you God. >> Yes I do your honor. >> Attorney Po I guess you heard about the chair's ruling yesterday with respect to um bringing devices with you. >> That's correct your honor and I do not have any device with me your honor. >> Thank you um attorney poa. Um, subsequently, the clerk is kindly instructed to um discuss this matter with the witness while he or she is in the holding area so as not to waste the

16:18 court's time on this issue or matter. Attorneys, your offer. >> Yes, your honor. Um, you're offering the testimony of attorney Michael Wesley Tipa to qualify him as a hostile witness and to prove the following. Number one, he is one of the vice president's most trusted men. spokesperson, chief of staff, OIC n finance at head of the procuring entity n deped spokesperson OVP defense council at legal spokesperson impeachment. Number two, he answered for 112.5 million pesos he knew absolutely nothing about.

17:14 125.5 million confidential funds department of education 112.5 million SDO Florida number three the vice president chose him the man who knew nothing to answer the auditors. Number four, his sources knew nothing either.

18:07 certifications rewards. Number five, he gave Ka mere theories and presumptions dressed as facts. certification payment of rewards. Number six, the certifications prove none of what the joint circular requires.

18:53 Joint circular reward informer information successful operation. Number seven, he admitted it himself. There's no connection at all. certification. Number eight, the cast led to a name he never once mentioned. Number

19:44 eight n he tried to soften the audit itself attorney Lopez chief of staff OVPO audit query number 10 Different hands scared out the steps. One principal directed them all. Number 11, the credit notice cured nothingificate

20:43 more than 15 million. Number 12. In the end, nothing was proven and no one could say where the money went. But every road leads to the vice president. more than 112.5 million.

21:29 President. Finally, number 13. Such other matters as may be relevant to the instant case. Your honor, >> comment, your honor. >> Yes, attorney. Um quite frankly your honor um I don't know if uh the 13 point um offer of the council deserves um any reasonable um comment considering that um they sound really just rhetoric um aimed to provide u drama in this proceeding but nonetheless your honor these are some of the comment that I have to the offer of the council Um um as to the offer that the witness is

22:14 one of the most trusted men of the vice president. Um and that uh he answered four that was the precise terminologies um stated by the council for 12 112.5 million. This is quite misleading your honor. In fact, um the use of answered for appears to be >> I am not yet to finish your attorney. Attorney allow attorney to finish >> his 13point um offer. >> So I would ask the same courtesy to allow your honor. Thank you. So this uh answered for 112.5

23:01 uh million is quite misleading and appears to be a deliberate heels to imply or insinuate that um the witness was made to provide just mere excuses to the auditors. In fact, if what he meant was um to reply to the audit observation memorandum, that is different from answered for 112.5 million. And I think that's quite um clear. and also your honor um I don't think that uh to include in the offer a statement that said is proper

23:48 whether here or outside the court whether we are trying an impeachment case or we're just talking to one another as fellow members of the bar and I I haven't even have to ask the court to strike this off the record. >> No, no, no, no. Can you respond already, your honor, or we're not yet? >> No, I'm not yet done. >> Allow her to finish, council. Even I knows she's not yet finished. >> I submit your >> Thank you, your honor. Also, your honor, the rest of the offer that says cash led to a name he never once mentioned, tried to soften the audit itself, different hands carried out the steps. one um uh princ one principal directed them all and the credit notice uh cured nothing

24:35 when the documents themselves and as the prosecution had stipulated uh yesterday and an information that we can find from the official website of the commission and audit itself that the credit notice is an official document of the commission and audit issued to inform the agency that it has audited the funds and it has cleared uh those funds in audit or the expenditures in audit and therefore this uh credit this offer as to the credit notice curing nothing that's uh obviously um a conclusion and every road leads to the VP obviously a rhetoric but uh we nonetheless uh will uh subject all offer to cross-examination subject of

25:21 course your honor to my request to strike off the statement I mean this witness even while he has an obligation to answer relevant questions in this trial, he also has under um the rules rule 132 certain rights and one of those rights is to be protected from irrelevant, improper and insulting questions. And not only that, also to be protected from harsh or insulting demeanor. Thank you, your honor. >> May I respond quickly, your honor? >> Noted. Attorney Sheila, before I recogn before the chair recognizes attorney to lossa, we are checking DTSN before the chair rules on the matter. Um, yes,

26:08 attorneys, your comment >> for something that does not deserve a comment. That's quite a lengthy comment. No, but anyway, um, first of all, attorney po, I hope you understand. There was never any intention on my part to insult you in any way. We have to take this in context. When I said what I meant was in Congress, he repeatedly said he knew totally nothing about the use and liquidation of the confidential funds. Context is very important. But nonetheless, if I offended you in any way, sir, I'm very sorry for that. That's not my intention. >> Very quick report, honor. >> Your honor, allow allow attorney to los to finish. >> I will. >> Yes. And um just to um make uh make this matter very clear, we've heard this from the defense with all due respect. No.

26:54 Every time either by way of objection or manifestation that the offer um constitutes conclusions of fact or law. No. But um let us be very clear. Witnesses may only testify on facts, cannot give conclusions of fact or law. But all types of evidence either testimonial or documentary are precisely offered for that purpose to prove a point of fact or law. No. So there's nothing objectionable about that. So please your honor, let's not belabor this point. With all due respect, let us proceed with the examination of attorney POA. >> In a while, attorneys, attorney, yes, >> just a very quick reply. Your honor, as to the point on the excuse given for the statement, I I am certain that the council um has

27:42 in his vocabulary other terms for if that was his explanation, he could have simply said that the witness has no personal knowledge and that would have been more respectful and more apt if that was the intention as he had said. Number two, as to his complaint about the comments of the defense to the offer um every time that the prosecution will state their offer before the presentation of their witness uh that it was you know offered uh to prove some uh fact or evidence precisely. Uh the offer must be geared for that purpose to prove a fact and not as a conclusion and not any speculation. That's all your honor. Thank you. >> Chair will make a ruling. Chair hereby orders that the phrase Abuadang alam be

28:28 stricken off the record. Chair finds it um discourages to say the least. >> Thank you. >> And should not be um used in relation to a fellow lawyer especially um before I I I I allow attorney to los to continue um just to save on the court's time. maternity to lossa. Um 3 4 5 7 10 um of your offer all say that attorney POA knows nothing. Um why are we asking him to testify on things he does not know about? >> That's precisely the reason I want him

29:14 to testify. Honor, why is it that the vice president passed his one of his trusted aids to respond to the AOM issued by the Ka when he confessed that he knew nothing about it? That is very material. >> Knew nothing as >> about how you're creating knew nothing with not having personal knowledge. >> Yes. Knew nothing had no personal knowledge about how the confidential uh funds were. um as he mentioned it operationalized or used on the ground. >> Attorney Sheila, are you willing to stipulate or um um admit that um attorney POA is a hostile witness to so as it's not to belabor that point anymore? I think your honor it is a matter of record that the witness is

30:00 part of the defense team and one of the lawyers of the vice president and um it can be reasonably presumed that the witness will not provide on a plate the prosecution's theory and conclusions. >> Okay. Okay. So, in so far as offers one and two are concerned um attorney Dlosa, these are deemed admitted and stipulated, namely that the witness is a hostile witness and that he is one of the trusted um lawyers advisors of the vice president. You can proceed um with proving your offers pertaining to numbers three to um 13. But before you continue, chair hereby declares by stipulation of the parties that Yes, attorney Sheila, >> just for the record, your honor, I never stipulated on any item in the offer, your honor. I think my understanding of

30:47 the statement of the presiding officer earlier was that it was just to qualify the witness as hostile, your honor. Thank you. >> So, the chair will proceed to declare attorney Paul as hostile witness. Therefore, giving attorney to los the right to ask leading questions. But again, as a reminder, not to ask misleading questions. You may proceed, council, your witness. >> Thank you, your honor. Uh before I start, just a few admin matters, your honor. May we respectfully ask for a continuing authority, your honor. No, that uh it be granted to our assisting lawyer for today, attorney Patricon, so that u whenever the need arises for it that she may be allowed to approach the witness to hand some documents that we'll have to confront him with. >> The motion is granted. Similarly, assisting council on the part of the respondents uh may approach the witness

31:34 anytime it may be necessary. Likewise, a similar authority for council to ask their tech or ask the tech to show whatever slides they want to show in the course of the testimony and or direct examination of the witness. Proceed council. >> I think your sorry on just one more matter. Yes. um that the same authority be granted to attorney Lauri uh Mango who's also acting as my second chair for today if necessary your honor. >> Granted as well. >> Thank you your honor. And just for the record, um the documents no that we will be using and confronting the witness with in his um examination today um particularly the audit observation memorandums issued by the KOA for the DEP eds use of

32:21 confidential funds for the first second and third quarters of 2023. No. And the responses filed by attorney um POA in relation to this as well as the different um liquidation reports no and its attachments that were filed no by the depth ed. These are all um exhibits which um um the defense have already agreed to stipulate on their due execution authenticity. If I'm not mistaken, it was even attorney POA himself uh who entered in such stipulation. Just for the record, your honor. >> Well, just for the record, your honor. Um >> yes, attorney. >> The documents mentioned yesterday uh were stipulated on yesterday by the

33:07 prosecutions uh or by the council of or by the prosecutor to the uh public um prosecutors, attorney Rob Bliss. Yes, those were the YS uh Y LS certificates, your honor. But with respect to the um COA related documents, I mean other ones, the ones issued by KOA and the liquidation reports um these were separately no um entered into stipulation on by the parties again if I'm not mistaken by attorney POA himself. I think your honor uh just also to set the record straight >> the documents subject of the stipulation yesterday uh were the following number one AOM number 2024-015

33:56 dated February 1, 2024 mark as D-I- 111-DE and second the reply to that uh AOM signed by this witness as under secretary and chief of staff. Marcus D-I-79-de. Third, the second AOM uh number 2024-171 dated August 8, 2024 marked as D-I-110-de and the reply to that AOM marked as D-I-93-DE as well as the liquidation reports with attachments as well as the certifications from AFP and the Philippine Army officers uh documents marked as D-I-1-de

34:42 uh D-I-6 65-de i--56-de um 82-de 81-de 80-de 83-de 84-de 94-de 96 97-de 95-de and 100-de which is the credit notice dated August 8, 2024 uh your honor just to set the record detailed clarification your honor thank you >> thank Yes. >> Are you ready to proceed, Attorney? >> Yes, your honor. >> You may proceed your witness. Again, to repeat, Cheryl already declared attorney POA as a hostile witness. You may proceed um accordingly. >> Good morning, Attorney Po.

35:27 >> Good morning. Good morning, sir. Good morning, your honors. >> Good morning, Attorney Sheila. >> Good morning, Jay. >> Belated. Happy birthday, by the way. I hope you don't mind. >> Thank you. Okay, before we start, um, uh, both of us, you know the drill. Um, we've already heard um, the presiding officer qualify as a hostile witness, that means I'm allowed to ask you leading questions. That's correct. So please sir I will have to request you if the answers are reasonably answerable by yes or no please do so sir because I would hate to have to cut you off no when you try to give explanation and I'm sure you're very much aware on cross you'll be given ample opportunity to respond no but I'll be very fair with you if you think the answer to the

36:13 question is not simply yes or no please let me know I'll either reform it or give you a chance to explain sounds fair sir >> we'll see how it goes sir we'll see how it goes. >> Okay. And um yeah, again um just another request. Um I know But of course without sacrificing your ability to properly articulate your answers only to the extent reasonable sir. >> Yes I understand you. I understand your request sir and thank you very much sir. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So attorney

37:10 the prosecution requested funds department. Yes. I hope I'm going to have to check back a little bit. No, no. So, um let's just talk about your work experience before going to the department of education. So, you will agree sir, that um before entering the department of education, you had um not less than 10 years serving different members of the board of trustees of the GSIS. Correct, sir? >> That's correct, sir. Around 12 years if

37:55 I'm not mistaken. >> Thank you. Thank you. And um um your position there was chief of staff of this members of the board of trustees. >> That's correct sir. >> Yes sir. And then um while um while working no at the gsis is it correct sir that um in 2018 you obtained your jurist doctor degree from the University of the Philippines college of law sir. >> That's correct sir. Okay. And in fact uh even while a working student you managed to graduate ninth in your class sir. >> That's correct sir. >> Yes. And and you took the bar examination that same year. So you became a member of the bar in 2019. >> Fortunately. Yes. That's correct sir. >> Okay.

38:45 Department of Education. So um Department of Education spokesperson with the level of director for July 26, 2022. Sir >> July 25 July 25 I think based on my appointment papers it was July 25, 2022. >> Okay. And then um less than a year after you became under secretary and chief of staff of department of education. Tamaho sir tamapo April 1 po 2023. >> Okay. And then on a few months after August 23, 2023 you also became an officer in charge under secretary for finance. >> Yes po 24. August 24. Thank you. Thank

39:31 you. >> Okay. And then again a few months after u October 17, 2023, please correct the date if I'm mistaken sir. No, you became the head of the procure entity or hope of deped. >> That's correct sir. The date is correct. >> Okay. And then you sign you stayed there until July 19, 2024 um once the vice president resigned as the secretary of the department of education. Tamapo sir. >> That's accurate sir. >> Okay. Um you would uh at the time that you entered the department of education you were um a lawyer for about four or five years. Is that >> yes around the time sir? Okay. And um during this time no in a span of two years no you had um um series of um

40:21 career progressions within the department sir I would say that yes sir um considering your experience at that time based on your experience working in the government. I I I I cannot say it was up to the appointing authorities. Yes. Yes. So I don't want to give the impression that I'm questioning I understand competent that you're um uh the hires based on merit actually may I request the defense council to actually stipulate no that the VP S VP S Duterte's decisions concerning ata poa's hiring as spokesperson and his

41:07 progression to senior positions in the department of education were based on am other on uh among others on his competence as a lawyer and his substantial prior experience performing executive administrative functions in the government. >> I think that the proposal for stipulation has already been covered by the questions of the council. So I think this is unnecessary. Okay. Your honor, >> also your honor, >> so is it accepted? Kindly, kindly allow attorney Z to finish. Council >> and also your honor, uh may uh I ask the court to just direct the council to ask his questions and to refrain from making statements just so in the interest of time, we'll be able to really speed up the process. Your honor, >> attorney J, please proceed.

41:54 >> Yes. But uh is the stipulation accepted or >> I can I can stipulate your own that the witness is competent >> um that he is trusted. >> Yes. >> And that um he is good at what he does. Your >> honor. Thank you very much. >> As as uh in the positions that he had previously held. >> Yes. And I'm sure um council will not object to this that they also willing to stipulate that an he is an experienced and a highly competent lawyer. Uh I think that's a matter of uh are you >> asking for a stipulation ma'am that your co-consel is an experienced and highly competent lawyer ma'am your co-consel >> then before I respond to that may I now ask um the prosecutor if they are

42:40 qualifying this witness as an expert >> definitely not those are two very >> that is the that is the inference from the proposal to stipulate that he is highly experienced and highly, you know, expertise >> in the work that he does, your honor, as a lawyer. So, um, earlier they qualified him as a hostile witness. And if they qualify him now as an expert, then that would give the prosecutor um, some leeway to ask him on um, legal matters, you know, >> hypothetical questions, hypothetical, etc. Respond. Yes, your honor. >> With all due respect, no, the defense cannot dictate on the prosecution on uh the nature of the testimony of the um of

43:28 the witness. That discretion falls entirely and exclusively on us if you want to present a witness as an expert witness ordinary witness. He may be the most qualified lawyer, but it's still our discretion if you want to use him and as expert witness or not. then council then council chair just very quickly please um with your indulgence and patience um then in that case the chair will ask council to simply proceed with his questions because council I find it irrelevant to be asking for a stipulation if attorney poa is good at what he does. I believe he is but um your honor >> um unless you will qualify him as an um as an expert as point Rabbi attorney

44:13 Sheila. Instead of going through these intramurals, >> no kindly attorney Sher's ruling, kindly proceed with your direct examination already and um >> go direct to your points. >> But with all due respect, his competence is highly material to this case. No, because it will go into the credibility of his statements. No. And of course, your honor, please no, we be given uh some leeway. No. Um because even if this is direct because he's a hostile witness. This is in the nature of our cross- examination. So uh we hope no that we be allowed we be given a um wider latitude in examining this witness. >> Council you do you were asking for a stipulation um which um the the opposing

45:00 council refused through. So again >> not that we've wasted enough time on these intramurals between you and council correspondent. Just proceed with your direct. >> The witness is there. The witness is smart enough to answer. >> Okay, >> let's proceed with that. So, let's talk about your duties and responsibilities as spokesperson. So, a spokesperson, your main responsibility was to communicate dep's official position on matters affecting the department. Tamaho tab. A spokesperson. >> Yes. And um in carrying out this function, of course, you dealt with uh upper management of the department.

45:46 >> Yes, I did. >> Yes. No. And then as a chief of staff, you assisted the secretary in the management of the day-to-day operations of the department. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Uh in fact, weekly cluster meetings with the other under secretaries. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. And you also held regular quarterly meetings with the depth ed regional directors. >> Yes sir. Yes. >> As much as possible. Consistent but as much as possible. >> Uh and in these meetings um is it correct to say that you represented the department secretary because you were the chief of staff. >> I was a presiding officer. Yes. So in that capacity you were there as um representative of the um department secretary or at least some of them maybe not all

46:32 but some I was representing the vice president in those meetings but uh I will just word it as accurately as I can. I was the presiding officer being uh the highest us of all the us there. >> Okay. Thank you. And uh you would admit that as chief of staff of the department secretary operationally and as to policy whatever happens in depth ed goes through you >> objection your honor >> what's the objection attorney >> vague your honor by the use of whatever your honor >> your honor these are precisely the own words of attorney po and I'm sure he will recall it do I need to show that he >> council must be precise too your honor but to ask a witness whatever that encompasses everything and that is prone

47:21 to misinterpretation. Your honor, >> no your honor, >> at this juncture, at this juncture, attorney Sheila, I would have to overrule. I'll allow attorney po to answer because I think he knows um >> attorney po is smart enough. He would know how to handle that question dayto-day operations dep in terms of its regular funds. Yes po. >> Yes, regular funds. Don't worry, don't jump the gun, sir. I'm not uh I'm going to >> I just know where where you're going, sir. >> Yes. Yes. No, no, no, no. That's not where I'm going. But to be clear, day-to-day operations, as long as it does not uh we agree on that point, as long as it does not concern confidential funds, you're aware of it. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. As under secretary of finance, your duties included ensuring proper

48:06 management of the department's budgetary and financial matters in order to support its operations. >> Only as OIC for a very short period, sir, your honor. >> Yes. Okay. And then as head of procuring entity basically you served as the approving authority for procurement matters of deped. No >> as hope sir. Yes. >> Yes. Sorry. Um did I did I misspoke? Yeah. But hope >> meaning uh in terms of awards >> uh notice to proceed but had nothing to do with the procurement process itself because hope as hope you had to distance yourself from the bidding. >> Yes that's correct. You act upon the recommendations of the bids and awards committee. >> Correct. and the procure and the under secretary for procurement sir. >> Okay. Now um only if you could remember

48:53 I hope the department and you were just there for 9 months sir. No >> uh to be precise October uh October sometime October October 17 until I resigned in July 19. >> Okay. So more or less 9 months. No. So during that period of time um as hope the department entered into procurement contracts with with an aggregate documented value of around 30 billion pesos just based on recollection. If you don't remember that's okay. >> I really don't remember sir the aggregate value that is something handled by the US for procurement. >> Okay. Um also if only you can remember the contracts that were approved by the deped during the time that you were hope the largest components of these contracts included large scale procurement of computers

49:39 >> um smart TVs laptops is that correct >> your honor >> before the witness answers attorney Sheila >> relevance your honor again um council had uh known from the very start that this is not about the regular funds uh but the confidential funds so I ask uh for the relevance of this line of question >> we want to be able to show the level of trust no and the seriousness of the responsibilities that were placed by the secretary on attorney POA no and this will be very material later um and we will establish that your honor when we get to that point >> you're in a short lease council >> wrapping it up >> witness man sir >> on the dep computerization program sir I I believe that was one of the uh bigger contracts uh that I I was present for uh

50:26 as Okay. So, considering all of these responsibilities that we talked about, you would agree that um these responsibilities, no, you were entrusted over important, sensitive and consequential matters affecting the department, >> affecting the operations of the department. Yes. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh and these positions were imbued with trust and confidence of the department secretary. Correct, sir. >> Correct, sir. >> Thank you. Okay. So um these different um high level positions in the depth ed it was the um secretary herself who appointed you to those positions correct? >> Uh sir it was the president who appointed me as under secretary as you know uh but of course upon the recommendation of the secretary then who

51:13 is the vice president. >> Okay. So direct reporting relationship through other officials. Okay. Of course. I I can you please clarify the question, your honor?

51:58 in general any I mean and it's request of course it's optional on your part to either grant or not but uh it's just uh if it's just a request even if their um ranks are lower than yours of course um uh that is okay that's >> attorney may we ask the prosecutor to specify in his question um the kind or the specific request that is pertaining to in his um query >> there's no need for Is that your honor? >> The point the point >> request in general >> the point of attorney Sheila is well taken. Um so that the court will be appraised as well. Attorney um Jay um what exactly are you talking about? >> Any request sir in general just of course pertains to your duties and responsibilities as official of the

52:44 department of education sir. >> Well that's my problem your honor. Any request in general your honor. Example, attorney J Babali baali for example request under secretary meeting I would say yes directly reported to the vice president Um instructions.

53:38 We're talking about instructions and um request official Department of Education. This is I will object your honor. This is misleading. Assumes facts not yet in evidence. Your honor, >> that's not misleading because I'm not assuming anything because precisely I'm asking him to explain if he agree with this or not. If he does not agree, he can say so. I'm not assuming anything. Attorney J. Attorney J. Kindly reform your question. Okay. So departmentary

54:23 even if you don't report to that person same same line attorney Jly reform well the witness has already answered your honor I will I will just answer Kina it was request. So when you say request then I have the discretion to say yes or no. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. I think the witness is um confused. We already moved on from the request sir. Of course

55:12 instructions. sir. Thank you. Okay. So, as chief of staff, no, you gave updates and received instructions to the vice president, no on uh matters concerning the operations of the department. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. Yes. And as spokesperson, would you agree that before even giving interviews, you got instructions for from the vice president on what you wanted you to say?

55:57 >> Guidance. I would say guidance, your honor. >> Not instruction, sir. >> Guidance. >> Okay. Okay. Congress November 5, 2024, sir. Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. May we ask your honor the tech booth to um flash on the screen page 100 to 101 of the TSN of the hearing held in November 5, 2024.

57:03 While we're waiting, um, chair would like to make of record You may proceed attorney J. So can we please zoom in to the portion starting? So even a spokesperson >> kindly zoom it in a bit more. >> Your honor, I would just like to manifest malabu. So if council can just

57:49 read it, I will be happy to just believe you on it. >> Maybe also ask for the page number of this um portion in the DSN. Your honor, >> 100 to 101, I believe. But this one, which one is it? Attorney J, >> you said earlier 100 to 101. >> Yes, your honor. We're asking for the specific page number of this particular um material being flashed on the screen now, your honor.

58:39 This is about five. >> If the council will confirm, your honor, we're able to locate this portion on page 101 to >> from pages 100 to 101, your honor. Yes. >> Okay. Um, do you confirm, Attorney J? I think the fact that you cut the paragraph into two boxes says that um it does not belong to the same page. >> Can you please take that down? I don't think that's it.

59:25 >> Well, for the record, your honor, I heard attorney to loa instruct uh their um lawyer in the tech booth to take it down, your honor. >> Yes, your honor. Yes, because um I don't think we're >> So, the chair will confirm upon verifying with exhibit on record with the court. It is found on pages 100 to 101. And the box, the two boxes accurately depict the fact that the lower box is contained on page 101. Proceed council. We apologize for the confusion, your honor. It's actually page uh 162 of PSN, >> same date, your honor. Apologies for the confusion, your honor.

1:00:21 Are you sure, Attorney J? >> Yes, your honor. >> Uh, your honor, is this >> 162? Your honor, >> is this the what she wants me to say during the interview? Are you pertaining to that line? >> Yes. Um, let me read it, sir. So even as a spokes person you're reading that portion sir when my balita and I need to get to an interview honestly I have to message no with vice president that time to find out every time on what she wants me to say during the interview. >> So what page is that attorney boa? >> That is page 163 top of the page 163 your honor. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. So you confirm those are your your words sir. Yes, your honor. >> Thank you. Thank you.

1:01:08 >> And that is why I said guidance. >> There's no question, sir. Thank you. >> Okay. And for your other roles, you did not take actions that are contrary to her instructions. Of course. >> Of course. Of course. And of course and in fact you even get her approval. Yes. Yes. Okay. So you would agree sir when acting on

1:01:55 matters in your official capacity you ordinarily made reasonable efforts reasonable efforts to understand the matter before acting on it. Yes, of course. As much as I am told. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. And then um let's go to okay um in your official communication no on

1:02:42 behalf of the department no either in writing or verbally no factual representation to the extent possible factual representation sir as much as I can as much as you can. misrepresent. I agree with you as much as possible information and um of course as a lawyer you know that your signature carries a lot of weight sir >> depending on the document that I'm signing the nature of the document

1:03:29 >> of course for example in pleadings no significance under rules of court but even an ordinary documents. Yes. Yes. To the extent possible. Yes. supporting supporting documents. Supporting documents as long as I'm

1:04:15 allowed to do so. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. Now sir, we'll go to the um aoom sir. Okay. So, uh again, as you've mentioned a while ago, no, we talked about the

1:05:00 November 5, 2024, um hearing. Um but you would um recall that um aside from that hearing, you also attended before the committee on good government and public accountability of the House of Representatives on September 25, 2024 and October 17, 2024 as well as November 25, 2024. Correct? >> Yes. In all hearings where I was invited, your honor, I attended all. >> Okay. Thank you. Um for the record, your honor, um this um hearings, no the transcript of which this honorable uh the honorable presiding officer already um kindly allowed our granted our request no to um take a judicial notice of this of those hearings as well as the TSNS covering them. And um just for the

1:05:47 record um these were marked as P--D roman numeral-1B and dash dash C dash G and then um as well as um B C D and G. Um, aside from that, sir, you also attended the um hearing that um before the committee on justice of the House of Representatives on April 14, 2026. Sir, >> I confirm that, sir. >> Yes. Um for the record, your honor, the TSN covering this hearing uh was marked as P- Roman numeral-12- F and um honorable court has also

1:06:33 already taken judicial notice of this matter. Also, your honor, uh just for the record, if I may be allowed to interject very >> Yes, Attorney Sheila. >> That uh that uh the grant of their motion to take judicial notice of the existence of these hearings and of the TSN's um is actually limited only to two matters. The existence um of those hearings that were actually conducted and of the TSNS. But I recall that in the presiding officer's ruling, it explicitly mentioned or stated that um both parties will not be allowed to use um those TSNs or those hearings to assert the truthfulness of um any record contained in those documents. Just for

1:07:19 um the record. >> Yes, of course. >> Statements and statements as well not is not made by the witness in any case. >> Yes. Correct your honor. as third party statements. >> These are common exhibits. Um, yes, your >> honor attorney, >> we we we agree with that, John. So, um, sir, would it be correct to say no before testifying today that um you familiarized yourself with the transcript of stenographic notes of these hearings? >> Uh, I I I reviewed briefly, no, the transcripts. >> Okay. Do you have your own copies, sir? Or if needed, um, would you need us to provide you with copies? Um I did not bring my own copy. So if if it is actually necessary I would request that you provide me with a copy. >> Okay. Um sir as you would know um a lot

1:08:06 of the questions no um that I will be propounding to you now uh would revolve around the statements that you gave no before during those hearings. But sir I hope you understand um if I I would not um waste the time of the court by having to flash everything. No, but and I'm sure if you could recall it without me showing it, no, you'll give the answer. But of course, sir, to be fair with you, anytime you feel there's a need for you to see the TSN, of course, please let me know and then I will show you the specific portions of the TSN. >> But if I can confirm it to expedite the proceedings, I will confirm. >> Thank you, sir. Very much appreciated. >> Okay. So um

1:08:55 okay let's start with um the KOA audit observation memorandum number 2024-015 dated Feb 1 2024 and we ask that uh the document be flashed on the screen your honor this is P- Roman numeral-121-8 a for the prosecution. >> Yes.

1:09:40 Okay. Sir, you will admit that you're very much familiar with this document confidential funds department of education first and second quarters 2023 I confirm that sir yes sir 37.5 million each per quarter amount 25 million sir address. Vice President Sutert. Okay. Um liquidation reports,

1:10:26 Department of Education. Okay. Um I'm sure if only if acceptable to you sir. But basically liquidation reports certifications you would agree sir po Edward Farda Edward Farda. Thank you. President as head of agency and uh

1:11:11 I think an accountant. Accountant. >> Yes sir. Okay. Now um after a while audit observation memorandum replies April 17 April 17, 2024. P-1-21-B. Um, for the record, your honor. Okay. Now um audit observation memorandumidation

1:12:02 first twoidential funds reporting documents requirements for liquidation under joint circular 2015-1. Okay. But um let's concentrate on the one pertaining to payment of rewards sir. Yes sir. Okay. Then s paragraph number three.

1:12:49 Okay. We noted that the payment payments of rewards to the informers in the amount of 7.5 million pesos for the period Feb 20 to March 30, 2023 and 8,31,000 for the period April 20 to June 29, 2023 or a total amount of 15,540,000 as reflected in the respective accomplishment reports were not supported with required documents specif specified in the immediately preceding paragraphs thus non-compliant with the joint circular. Okay. So aware specific

1:13:37 compant payment of rewards 4.8.5b of the joint circular correct. Okay. Um we request that uh that provision be flashed on the screen. Do you see? Okay. Okay. Um, can you please zoom in, please?

1:14:26 Thank you. Okay. Documentary evidencing success. Yes. Um can you please um zoom in a little more please sir? >> Okay so you'll see here no um 4.8 confidential funds shall be used only for the following confidential expenses 4.8.5 8.5 payments of rewards to

1:15:13 informers and which should be non-emp employees of concerned government agency subject to the following conditions. So A this is approval by the a the head of agency. B supporting documents with supported supported with documents evidencing the success of the information gathering and or surveillance activities on account of the information given by the informer. Sir. Yes. Yes. This is precisely the provision proof of success sir. Provision you would agree no that it requires

1:15:58 basically three things. No. It requires supported with document documents evidencing the success of the information gathering and our surveillance activities on account of the information given. So information given by the informer if you'll correlate it. That's my interpretation as well. Yes.

1:17:01 Success of the information gathering and or surveillance activities on account of the information. Insert information using a reward. Success information gathering and or surveillance activities. Success of the information gathering on and or surveillance activities. information generally. And I say generally because sorry please no

1:17:47 >> I ask that the witness be allowed to answer your honor because he hasn't even heard the first sentence of that answer your honor. And now he's cutting the witness. >> No, no. First of all, your honor, please. No. With all due respect, this is not just an ordinary witness. He is a very experienced and competent counsel. Second, not just your honor, please. No, let me finish ma'am. >> Not just any council, >> not just any lawyer. She he himself is the council in this very same proceedings of the respondent. No. So we ask your honor that we strictly implement this provision. I mean the rules of court which requires when leading questions if they're answerable by yes or no. Sir, you you can explain later on. But please if it's answerable by yes or no, it's okay. If you don't agree with that,

1:18:34 I'm saying, please say no. If you agree, please say yes. So, I'll repeat it, sir. >> No, I I I will respond to that since he invoked. Actually, your honor, there's nothing in the rules that provide uh provides for um the allowance of questions that can only be answerable by yes or no. In fact, what the rules of court state is that the answers of the witness must be responsive, your honor. And so the witness is not prohibited from giving responsive answers. Your honor, now I am not dictating the prosecutor what to ask. I'm merely asking that he does not interrupt the witness because according to him, the witness is intelligent. The witness is smart. He can answer for himself. The

1:19:19 problem earlier was that he cut the witness off in the process of answering when he doesn't even uh know yet what the answer of the witness is. >> May you respond, your honor, please? >> Can you respond? And then I want to hear from attorney Pawa to as a third lawyer. >> Yes, your honor. First of all, your honor, it is clear under the rules that once the reason or the ground for the objection becomes apparent, you could already assert that objection. Second, no um the rules clearly state as pointed out by the council that the witness can only give responsive responses to questions. Hence, if the answer that you're eliciting is clearly, you know, it's an the question is clearly answerable by yes or no, any answer that does not conform to that is not

1:20:04 responsive. Hence, we may ask that it be stricken of the record if it's given or we may prevent the witness from giving it in the first place. >> I disagree with that, your honor. Not necessarily, not in all. >> So, attorney Pa, what do you think? >> Your honor, I will just say it's a qualified yes. No. Uh there might be correlation. >> No, but let the chair make a ruling first. Um indeed there is nothing in the rules that would limit or constrict a um witness to a mere yes or no answer and it should be responsive as correctly pointed out by attorney toa. >> That's the risk you run with a hostile and intelligent witness attorney J. That's understood. >> Um so um the chair will allow the qualified affirmative answer of attorney

1:20:51 POA. So he answered your question attorney Jay with a qualified yes in relation to the success of the surveillance activities in exchange for information given for which it was paid. >> Okay. When you Thank you. Thank you honor. So when you say qualified, are you saying that your interpretation of 4.8.5b 8.5 point B you're saying there are instances wherein it is allowed that the evidence that the supporting documents that you would present. It's allowed that that supporting evidence would not even establish the connection between the information given and the success of the information gathering. >> Well your honor u >> it's manifest that the question is

1:21:38 argumentative. It also solicits interpretation or opinion on what the law says. >> Reform council, it is argumentative. He may be um he may be a smart lawyer, but um at this juncture um you still cannot argue with him. Reform council, I know where you're getting at. You can get to it. >> We we respect that, your honor. But um with all due respect, no, because we've been hearing this objection a lot of times from the defense. um a question. No, e even if it presses the respondent or or or the witness, that does not um automatically mean that it is um argumentative. No. Um a question is argumentative. >> Council, please. Chair already made a ruling and it's the first time attorney

1:22:23 Sheila used argumentative as a ground for objection. With other witnesses, um that's up for them. Again, I know where you're getting at. You can get to it, council. We submit your honor. >> Thank you, Attorney J. Please proceed. >> Okay. >> Actually, your honor, I know where he's what he's trying to say. So, I can answer him and tell him. >> Can you help him attorney already to obligate the proceedings? >> I'm not saying evidence of success related. You're not saying that. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is

1:23:12 information. Yes. Rewarding your honor. Your honor, it's not misleading. Precisely. I'm asking him to question your honor. Every time the defense council speaks, she demands that everyone listen. Um council for council, I cannot I cannot understand anymore the points you're raising. Um attorneys.

1:24:00 Yes. Because your honor, I'm saying that in I have to clarify personal knowledge operations ed. So I'm answering based on my understanding uh based on of course what I've read. No when I was trying to understood you don't have personal information obviously will will lead to success. So you're that's what you're saying is lead to success but ultimately surveillance was successful meaning no incident as you defined it. Yes. >> Okay. Attorney J move on. Yes. Sorry. I have to clarify that

1:24:46 interpretation again. Correct me. Of course 4.8.5b not at all times. Not at all times. At all times information resulted to success. This >> Yes sir. Simple. Let me preface my answer with saying that uh this is my interpretation. >> Yes, I understand that sir. I understand that

1:25:34 information necessarily information it will result to success. Okay, sir. That's my question sir. Come on sir. Come on your honor. I'm trying to explain if you want the truth. Let the witness complete his answer. >> Okay your honor please. >> Let the witness complete his answer. Attorney J. Attorney please continue. And and at the time information and at the time that we needed to submit evidence of success at the time. Yes sir.

1:26:20 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. See you. Yes. Yes. Reward.

1:27:20 Yes. Okay. Being the competent lawyer that you are joint circular 2015-01. Yes. Yes. Okay. And of course inal you relied on this very same joint circular when you prepared your reply. No. >> Yes. Uh along with of course consultation. >> Yes sir.

1:28:23 Okay. So payment as reward to inform a rewards.

1:29:11 Let me let me clarify at all times. I'm just saying based on of course this is based on consultation with the SDO. So definitely okay documentary evidencing success which is required under the JC sir. Thank you. No. Okay. So um before we go there um would you recall um the statements that you gave um about um your knowledge of um in participation with respect to confidential funds um at

1:29:57 the time that you received the AOM? >> Yes, that I did not have any personal knowledge. That's what I said. Oh yeah. Um Attorney Jay, as you're flipping the pages, I hope you're shortening your direct. >> Yes, your honor. Yes, sir. >> Um, you're skipping rather some of the

1:30:42 questions as I see you flipping the pages. Okay. Um you would admit that you said that um um during those uh one of those hearings no your position actually you're very consistent on this that um you said operationally how it was used. You had no personal knowledge referring to confidential. I confirmed that sir. Yes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. TSN. Now um you basically you became

1:31:32 involved in confidential funds of the deped only when you received the reply. Okay. participation reports involved with operationally dayto-day You're involved the COS but not confidential funds. Yes.

1:32:18 So Tamahuba you any involvement that you had with respect to confidential funds it started when you received the AOM. >> When I received a M. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you sir. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. So siral sir

1:33:03 OM under secretary meag proof of success. Uh sir simple sir question I can explain but if that's just your question yes upon the advice of the SDO. Yes. Okay. Okay. Um later on

1:33:51 I won't refer since you're answering veryeneral certifications youth leadership summit. You were just asking for any proof of success. >> Accomplishment report, sir. Accomplishment report. Accomplishment. Okay.

1:35:09 Okay. So, um accomplishment reports or proof of success department of education. He was for administration. >> Okay. Thank you. So you for administration you would admit confidential funds

1:35:56 certificates from um members or officials of the AFP. uh Ban Singh Ponopio and um and the fourth one sir if I yes okay you would agree either colleagues or classmates um PMA sir

1:36:41 hearing. >> Oh and you have no reason to contest that sir? >> That's a statement sir. >> Yes. No my question is you have no reason? >> I have no personal knowledge to contest it. >> Yes. Thank you. Okay. And um again, unless you tell me that it's necessary, you would admit that um they stated that when they provided these documents, they did not know that they will be used to justify the DEP ed's use of liquidation of of confidential funds. >> I remember them saying that, sir. >> You'll remember saying it. Okay. or at least to be accurate I think one or two of them

1:37:28 actually it's for attendance different agencies that attend their um activities such as the Y LS >> I remember one or two stating that I'm sure you agree department of education AFP youth leadership um summit. >> Yes sir I confirm that. >> Okay >> sir sorry as to confidential funds you were pertaining to confidential funds. Okay.

1:38:33 Or let's call them AFP certifications. And when I say AFP certifications, pertaining to YSL. So um the reason why you use this um YSL certifications words it was on the premise that whatever activity was conducted on the ground by the military was targeted because of information received from DEP ed due to those rewards given out on the premise. Tamah sir no. >> Yes sir. As stated in the document your words >> that's not my question. My question is those were your words to the Congress when explaining why you use those certificates. >> Yes. >> That's how you explained it. Tama sir. Okay.

1:39:19 >> So in fact you expressly described your view as an impression Tamah sir no as stated in that TSN. Yes. >> Impression. Yes. Impression po. And again this is just my impression be because the AFP received information from DEP ed the YS was targeted to particular areas. Your word sir. >> Yes sir. My >> and you even added again that is just my interpretation of the certification. Correct. >> Yes sir. >> Yes. And you even clarified whether or not that is indeed the case. I really do not have personal knowledge of it. Tamo tama. Okay.

1:40:05 Okay. Congressman Floresicular information. Okay. And when asked where the connection came from, you called it your theory. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. And in stating that theory of yours, you said because of the information that deped was probably able to give the AFP. Correct sir? >> Yes, sir. >> Use the word probably also. >> Yes. Because I don't have personal knowledge. >> Yes. So at that point

1:40:51 even if not necessarily my connection rewards but um assuming there are connection between the rewards the information the the AFP activities this is not something within your personal knowledge correct sir >> it is not within my personal knowledge sir >> and it was as you've mentioned on it was your premise, your impression, your interpretation and your theory. Correct sir? >> Yes. >> Based on the documents. >> Yes. Thank you. Okay. So try theory. Please tell me if it's correct. AFP

1:41:38 certificates confidential funds. It enabled the AFP activities particularly the YS. >> Yes. Based on the documents based on the document that you saw the certificates. Yes. Okay.

1:42:43 Okay. On page three of the document of the letter dated April 17, 2024 filed with the commission on audit. Can we please flash it? Paragraph 3. Upper hand portion of the document. Um, sir, do you need a copy of the

1:43:30 letter, sir? So, we >> No, I think I can remember what I said, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to read it, sir. No. On the finding that payment of rewards to informers must be supported with documenting, sorry, must be supported with documents evidencing success of the information gathering and or surveillance activities on the account of the information given by the informer. Zoom in sir. Financial rewards were given to informers for leads and/or integral information received which in turn allowed the department to formulate narrowly targeted programs, information campaigns and in interventions against

1:44:16 recruitment, violent extremism and other criminal activities and special identified communities. Now let's go uh uh exactly with respect to the AFP certificates attached here too as annex B1 to B4 are the certifications. These certifications refer to those AFP certificates we've been discussing sir. >> Yes the foreign certifications. >> Yes. So certifications issued by relevant partner agencies evidencing the success of various programs, projects and activities directly resulting from the information provided by informers during the specific period. Sir clear like what you said a while ago that it was just based on your theory

1:45:02 sir. Yes or no? Please sir this is argumentative. already answered. Already answered. Council >> witness answered. Yes. >> Yes. Thank you, sir. You also did not use the word presumption. No, just like what you explained in Congress. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. And in fact, you would admit that these theories, presumptions that you had, you presented them as facts when you responded to the KOA. Correct, sir? >> Well, argumentative. That's not very clearly argumentative >> and in fact imputing a motive on the witness. your honor. >> I will have to sustain I will have to sustain the objection. Council um reform or move on. >> But

1:45:51 yeah, okay. Okay. So this your your statement here again which we've just read activities directly resulting from the information provided by informers during the specific period. This um so-called information you have no knowledge whatsoever what that is right >> the information that was exchanged. Yes sir. >> This information that you referred to. >> Yes sir. >> Yes. Okay. see here. So to be um fair with you

1:46:42 know at first you said it was just based on your presumption. It was your theory but this was before you heard the explanation of the AFP officers. Correct sir? >> No sir I said that after they actually already explained. Ah so during the course of the hearing okay sir okay okay sir while you're preparing that letter certificates as what we've explained activities

1:47:29 officers. No, no, no sir. I think I think this is uh I think I'll need to explain if if of course the honorable court will allow and of course if he will not object to me trying to explain question it was based on your presumption was your theory certific personal knowledge impression. Yes. Okay. At that time you just relied relied on your presumption and your theory. at that timelan

1:48:17 offic no that's not that's not the way it is sir explanation personal knowledge and I'm just basing on the document the certification train of thought so that's why I use the word theory it has nothing to do with the chronology on did I hear the explanation of the metal before or after. >> Okay, >> I hope sorry I hope you understand where I'm going. Of course, of course, of course. Thank you for clarifying. So dep

1:49:15 from any informant No, this is new information to you. That's what I was getting at. >> I have an objection, your honor. I >> What's your objection, council? >> There's a statement in the question that is actually misleading. Your honor, I do not remember any of the two witnesses yesterday from the AFP or Philippine Army saying that there was no information that was used coming from the Department of Education. In fact, that was a rejected stipulation yesterday. >> I would have to sustain counsel. Um, there was no such statement. Quite the contrary, two of the certifications said that they got information from deped specifically the certification issued by Colonel um as pointed out by the Senate President in his questioning and intervention yesterday in the

1:50:01 certification of um Colonel um Panopio. >> Thank you. >> Reform Council. >> Okay. In that case, your honor, may we request that That video number 11 be played, your honor, by the tech book. >> Yes. This video, your honor, shows a portion of that hearing held on October 17, 2020, sorry, October 17, 2024, your honor. um before the CGPA of the House of Representatives.

1:50:50 So, so is that um AFP conducted these seminars because you gave them the information that this sector is vulnerable. >> Uh not not me per se, but that is the theory. Yes. Okay. AFP Colonel Buran Singh. Sir, >> Colonel Boran Singh, you are recognized. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When the YLS was conducted in your area by your division, you conducted it because it was a regular program of your division, Tama Abua. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Now, how about you, Colonel Ponupio? Did you conduct a YS in your area with

1:51:37 your division or with your battalion because it is a regular program of your battalion or FDFP? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> See, Mr. Pua, >> do you want me to ask the others? >> Oh, >> they will still be giving me the same answers po. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Your honor, I am not uh I am not in a position to really tell you. Then who is in position to tell me that? >> Your honor, I >> Chino, >> it would probably be the secretary, your honor, or the ones that are responsible for the the confidential funds. And again, I'm under oath. >> Who who's responsible for the confidential funds? >> Uh your honor, the secretary and the SDO are the only ones preview. You know, if

1:52:23 only they would have been here to answer these questions. Right now everyone is really confused. No una why will you be using a certification for an activity of another unit it's confusing right if it's just between us it's confusing now if you hear the the answers of the AFP silang lhat had nothing to do with deped when they conducted the wireless it had nothing to do with deped it was their own programs that they were pursuing now here comes youep me collecting the certifications from the activities conducted by AFP submitting it to you and you submitting it to ka to justify your expense. >> Yes, your honor. That is >> it's wrong. >> Yes. But >> from from all from no matter how you look at it, it's so wrong.

1:53:09 >> Yes. >> Uh Mr. Chair. Yes. Please proceed. But yes, actually that's really what happened, your honor. >> So mo is that um AFP conducted this. Okay. >> May May I ask if there is a question from the paying of this video, your honor? >> None yet. Council, I believe, >> just finished. Ma'am, >> I'm going to ask him questions, of course. >> Uh, can we please um flash the DSA in your honor?

1:53:55 >> Your honor, Mr. Council, may I request for uh just a copy just because I cannot read the in the screen. >> Mayor the witness >> a copy or just read it to him. Attorney JSN. Yes, please. >> You can also read it to him if you wish. >> Okay. >> See guys, so it as we've heard no a while ago. Representative Flores >> 70. Okay. Now if you hear the answers of the AFP silang lahat had nothing to do with deped when they conducted the wireless. It had nothing to do with the deped. It was their own programs that were pursuing. Now here comes you segment

1:54:40 mein collecting the certifications from activities conducted by AFP submitting to you and you submitting it to KA to justify your expense again it's wrong da can we can we please flash it >> page 129 your honor

…