House Prosecutors Defend Evidence Presentation in VP Duterte Impeachment Trial

By Pexcel John Bacon and Kaela Patricia B. Gabriel THE House of Representatives prosecution panel on Thursday defended its bid to present evidence in Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio’s impeachment trial, arguing that accountability should take precedence over procedural objections, as it questioned the defense’s opposition to subpoena for the Vice-President’s financial records. Manila Rep. Joel R. Chua said there was no reason to block the presentation of evidence if Ms. Duterte had nothing to hide. “If there is nothing to hide, what is the reason for not allowing the presentation of evidence?” he told a news briefing in Filipino. “That way, our fellow citizens can see whether there is really sufficient evidence or none at all against our Vice-President.” He said impeachment is a constitutional accountability process rather than a criminal proceeding, adding that the Rules of Court serve only as a guide in impeachment proceedings. “We cannot apply the strict implementation of the Rules of Court because this is not a court of law,” Mr. Chua said. “Accountability remains paramount here, and alongside accountability is evidence.” House prosecution counsel Lorna Patajo-Kapunan said Philippine laws recognize impeachment as an exception to bank secrecy and confidentiality rules, allowing the impeachment court to subpoena bank and tax records. She cited the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, whose bank records were admitted as evidence, saying the same principle applies in Ms. Duterte’s case. “An impeachment case is an exception to the bank secrecy laws,” Ms. Kapunan said, adding that the defense would still have the opportunity to challenge the authenticity and relevance of the documents before the impeachment court. “The public also has a right to due process,” she said. “The prosecution also has a right to due process to be able to present its case.” The prosecution also rejected the defense’s argument that its request for bank and tax records amounted to a “fishing expedition” because the documents were not attached to the impeachment complaint. Mr. Chua said the issue had been overtaken by events because the case is now in the trial stage and the subpoena requests had already been identified in the parties’ pretrial briefs. Ms. Kapunan added that impeachment complaints are required only to state the ultimate facts supporting the charges, while documentary evidence is introduced during trial. Meanwhile, the prosecution said it expects to complete the presentation of evidence for the impeachment article involving allegations of grave threats and inciting to sedition by Tuesday through the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin A. Matibag. Ms. Kapunan said Mr. Matibag would discuss the status of the NBI probe and authenticate evidence, including the chain of custody of the video in which Ms. Duterte allegedly said she had instructed someone to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., First Lady Louise Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez if anything happened to her. La Union Rep. Francisco Paolo P. Ortega V said the NBI chief’s testimony would be significant because he has access to the bureau’s records and other information related to the investigation. “Being the head of the bureau, he has access to all of the records,” Mr. Ortega said. “There will be fireworks.” RULING DEFERRED Meanwhile, the Senate impeachment court said it might not rule on Monday on the prosecution’s request to subpoena Ms. Duterte’s financial records because the documents relate to the second article of impeachment, which will be taken up later in the trial. Impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol said the senator-judges have the discretion to defer action because the requested records are not immediately needed. “We expect a ruling, but you have to factor in that these pieces of evidence requested by the prosecution have no urgency because they are for Article II,” Mr. Tongol said during a Zoom briefing. He noted that the impeachment court had already approved subpoenas for four witnesses under the first article of impeachment after lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville R. Luistro moved for their issuance during Wednesday’s proceedings. Mr. Tongol said the requests involving financial records require more careful consideration because they involve privacy and confidentiality laws. He also noted that while the prosecution had withdrawn six witnesses for the fourth article of impeachment, the move would not necessarily shorten the overall trial because those witnesses or other evidence could still be presented under other articles. The prosecution has presented two witnesses on the fourth article of impeachment, which includes allegations that Ms. Duterte made grave threats and incited sedition through statements about an alleged assassination plot against the President, the First Lady and Mr. Romualdez. Mr. Tongol said prosecutors are expected to finish presenting evidence for that article by the end of July.