Sara Duterte opposes changing sequence of evidence presentation in impeachment trial

Vice President Sara Duterte has made it clear that she is opposed to changing the sequence of evidence presentation in her impeachment trial. On Tuesday, July 28, Duterte's camp formally filed an opposition before the impeachment court. The following day, July 29, the Senate impeachment court ruled that the status quo would be preserved, maintaining the current order. Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero had asked the parties if they were open to altering the current order of evidence presentation. Escudero indicated that if one party disagreed, the status quo would remain. Duterte's opposition is based on four main arguments: it violates concepts of fair play and due process, goes against what was agreed upon during the pre-trial conference, defies the Senate impeachment court’s pre-trial order, and shifts the burden of proving the accusations from the prosecution to the respondent. Duterte's lawyers cited Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor denied equal protection of the laws. They argued that this constitutional guarantee ensures the respondent has a fair and reasonable opportunity to know the allegations and the evidence against them, enabling the preparation of a comprehensive defense strategy. "Requiring the respondent to present evidence per Article before the Prosecution has fully presented its case-in-chief for all Articles undermines this constitutional guarantee and will deprive her of the opportunity to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her and the evidentiary basis supporting them, if any," the defense’s reply stated. The defense lawyers also emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. "If the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the accused need not even answer any of the charges and must be acquitted," they added. Conversely, the prosecution argued that their proposed sequence "allows [Duterte] an immediate opportunity to address the evidence presented on a particular article before the proceedings move to the next, while enabling the impeachment court to receive and evaluate all evidence relating to each charge in a more comprehensive and self-contained manner." Duterte's camp contended that the pre-trial order issued by the impeachment court should govern the proceedings. "Considering that the purpose of pre-trial is to take the trial of the case out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering, any deviation from this agreed upon sequence will undermine the binding force of the Pre-Trial Order and render the entire pre-trial proceeding meaningless. Modifying a pre-trial order during trial indubitably results in manifest injustice," the defense team stated. In past impeachment trials, such as that of former chief justice Renato Corona, the defense presented their evidence only after the prosecution had rested its case. This order is also standard in criminal proceedings. Defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa refuted insinuations that the defense opposed the change in sequence due to a lack of witnesses, stating, "That's not true." Information source: Rappler Philippines