Sara Duterte impeachment trial: Prosecution says statements were on procedure, not merits

Members of the House prosecution team in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte maintained on Friday that their statements were limited to procedure and summaries of what had already been discussed, not the merits of the case, and thus did not violate the sub judice rule. Representative Terry Ridon of Bicol Saro party-list and private counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. asserted this in response to a show cause order issued by the Senate impeachment court, which asked them to explain why their recent statements did not violate the sub judice rule barring parties to the case from speaking on its merits. "Rep. Ridon's public statements have been made in the course of performing his responsibilities as a member of the House Prosecution Panel, and pursuant to the prosecution's commitment to keep the public informed of the status and progress of the impeachment proceedings," Ridon said in his answer to the show cause order. "In making these statements, Rep. Ridon never intended to prejudge the case, influence the Senator-Judges, substitute public discussion for the evidence and arguments properly presented before the Honorable Court, or diminish the authority of the Honorable Court to determine the merits of the impeachment case," Ridon added. Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero had issued a directive barring senator-judges, as well as counsels for both the prosecution and defense, from speaking publicly on the merits of Duterte's impeachment case. He cited Rule 18 of the Senate Impeachment Rules, which provides that, “The Presiding Officer, the Members of the Senate, the prosecutors, the person impeached, and their respective counsel and witnesses shall refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial.” Tolosa, for his part, said his statements were mere explanations on how the prosecution intends to present its evidence before the Senate impeachment court. "With due respect, none of the challenged statements falls within the prohibition under Rule 18. Some concerned only procedural matters and did not evaluate the merits of the case. The others merely recounted matters already placed on the public record during the proceedings, fairly and accurately, in good faith, and without editorial comment," Tolosa said. "Accordingly, there is no basis for citing the undersigned counsel for violation of Rule 18. When each challenged statement of the undersigned counsel is considered in its complete context, none evaluates a disputed fact, the credibility of a witness, the relevance, weight, or sufficiency of evidence, the legal viability of an Article of Impeachment or substantive defense, or the proper disposition of any charge," Tolosa added. Further, Tolosa said his statements did not state that the prosecution's evidence was already sufficient to warrant the Vice President's conviction. Likewise, Tolosa said he did not urge the Senate impeachment court to convict the Vice President. "A statement made to explain a procedural decision of the Prosecution: that it would no longer present its remaining witnesses because their testimony would be cumulative of matters already adduced during the hearings. It was not an assessment of the weight, probative value, or legal sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction or acquittal," Tolosa said. "The undersigned counsel did not assess the credibility, weight, or sufficiency of those statements and admissions, nor did he urge this Honorable Impeachment Court to draw any particular conclusion from it. Instead, it was merely made to explain the Prosecution's decision to reserve its right to call Respondent (Vice President) to address matters attributed to her in the evidence already presented," Tolosa said he merely summarized the argument put forward by his teammate, private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia, when the defense suddenly said the unusual names of the confidential fund recipient were alias only after three weeks of the impeachment trial when the defense never said these names were aliases in their verified answer to the impeachment case. "The said statements are not comments but were accurate reiterations of the declarations previously made in open court by the witnesses of the prosecution and one of the counsels of the panel of prosecutors. Thus, a restatement of the same during the September 8 press conference clearly constitute fair and true reporting which is an exception to 18," Tolosa added. — VDV, GMA News