Constitutional hurdle looms over bid to summon VP Duterte to testify

The prosecution team in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has expressed its desire to call her to the witness stand. However, the defense team has raised strong opposition, citing a constitutional provision. Lead defense lawyer Sheila Sison cited Article 3, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which states, "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” Sison emphasized that this is not merely a statutory right but a fundamental right emanating from the Constitution itself. This situation draws a parallel to the 2012 impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona. On the second day of that trial, the Senate impeachment court, presided over by Juan Ponce Enrile, junked the prosecution's motion to summon the Chief Justice, who enjoyed the right against self-incrimination. The prosecution had sought Corona and his family to testify regarding allegations of ill-gotten wealth. The decision was not unanimous, with 14 senators voting to quash the motion and six rejecting it. Notably, among those who voted against the motion in the Corona trial were Senators Alan and Pia Cayetano, who are also senator-judges in the current Duterte trial, and Manny Villar, whose children Mark and Camile are also senator-judges. Among those who voted in favor of the motion were incumbent senators Lito Lapid, Jinggoy Estrada, Tito Sotto, Kiko Pangilinan, Ping Lacson, and the current presiding officer, Chiz Escudero. In the Duterte trial, Escudero pointed out to the defense that Corona eventually testified in his own trial, but it was out of his own volition, serving as the last witness for his defense team. "Although there may seem to be…a prohibition against opposing counsel calling the respondent, nothing prevents the respondent from deciding through her counsel to also appear, should she wish to do so, basing it on Corona and what he did," Escudero told Sison. Sison replied, "We are aware of that, your Honor, but I think the Corona event is different. Because in that case, I think the decision to testify was voluntary." The prosecution team's declaration to summon Duterte came shortly after announcing its decision to drop remaining witnesses in their impeachment article concerning her alleged misuse of confidential funds. The prosecution presented a total of 12 personalities for the confidential fund misuse case, including three hostile witnesses: former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta, OVP chief of staff Lemuel Ortonio, and former Department of Education chief of staff Michael Poa. All three claimed they did not have personal knowledge of how the secret funds were actually disbursed, as OVP and DepEd SDOs had turned over the funds to Duterte’s security officers, Raymund Lachica and Dennis Nolasco, in apparent violation of government joint circulars on confidential spending. Lead public prosecutor Jinky Luistro asserted that the prosecution’s plan to call the Vice President to the witness stand after presenting all their impeachment articles is aligned with the ideals of the Constitution. "It is important that the impeachment court, including the viewing public, witness how the respondent Vice President answered to all these allegations because this is the spirit behind the provision of the Constitution on transparency and accountability," Luistro stated. Escudero did not issue a ruling on Tuesday, stating the court will await the formal manifestation from the prosecution. He informed the defense that they can make a formal comment and that the court can open it to oral arguments if necessary before a ruling is made. He also acknowledged the constitutional provision cited by the defense and expressed hope that the prosecution will argue its non-applicability in their motion. Information Source: Rappler Philippines