VP Impeach Pre-Trial Starts; No Decision Yet On Escudero

The ball has started rolling ahead of the July 6 start of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, with both defense and prosecution panels facing each other at the pre-trial conference at the Senate on Thursday, June 18.

A pre-trial conference, like any court procedure, involves the stipulation of facts, the marking of evidence and identification of witnesses, and the setting of trial dates. It is intended to ensure an orderly trial proper and prevent the presentation of surprise witnesses.

Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, meanwhile, said they have yet to discuss who would preside over Duterte’s impeachment trial, amid reports that Sen. Francis Escudero has been designated as presiding judge.

“Right now as it stands, I will preside,” Gatchalian said at a briefing on Thursday. Sen. Panfilo Lacson earlier said the majority bloc would choose Escudero for the job.

Gatchalian also said the Sandiganbayan’s 90-day preventive suspension on Sen. Jinggoy Estrada would bar him from functioning as impeachment trial judge during the suspension period.

At Thursday’s pre-trial conference, Duterte’s legal team spokesman Michael Poa denied there was a tense moment between the parties. But if there had been one, it would be expected, Poa said.

“Arguments are normal in such a pre-trial and we were able to settle it,” Poa said.

“As you know, we conducted markings, stipulations, etc., we will just submit our observations, including what we will admit, what we will not admit,” he added.

Poa said they were able to finish on Thursday the marking of documents for Article III for direct bribery and Article IV for death threats and live-streamed seditious remarks against President Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos, and Leyte 1st District Rep. Martin Romualdez.

He also said the pre-trial conference did not touch on evidence and both parties “found ways to expedite the proceedings.” The pre-trial will resume on Monday, June 22, to complete the marking of documents.

Members of the prosecution panel led by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro declined to be interviewed about the outcome of the marking.

Long trial

But Luistro said the trial proper will “take a long time,” possibly until the end of September.

She said the period would be enough for the senators sitting as judges to resolve issues before voting on the case.

“So, to those who are saying that we should stop this trial to give way to this prejudicial question, I don’t think so because in the end, we will still be needing the certainty as to the number of votes required for the purpose of conviction,” Luistro of the 2nd district of Batangas said, referring to the debate over whether the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote for conviction should be based on the Senate’s full membership, or only on senators physically present during the proceedings.

She stressed the issue concerns Senate procedures and may not have to be resolved by the courts. Luistro also chairs the justice committee of the House of Representatives.

“As a general rule, that is a justiciable question because it pertains to the procedure in the Senate,” she pointed out. “And just like the petition about the (Senate) leadership, didn’t the SC dismiss it? They refused to resolve the issue for the reason that it is a political question which belongs exclusively to the constitutional autonomy of the Senate.”

The 10 members of her team are Reps. Jose Manuel Diokno, Leila de Lima, Ysabel Maria Zamora, Lorenz Defensor, Jonathan Keith Flores, Ramon Rodrigo Gutierrez, Lordan Suan, Joel Chua, Terry Ridon and Kaka Bag-ao.

‘Smokescreen, not flashlight’

House prosecution spokesman Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong (Lanao del Sur), meanwhile, said the defense’s pre-trial brief appears designed to create confusion than to provide answers.

“A pre-trial brief should be a flashlight. It should shine light on the issues. It should help the court, the parties, and the Filipino people understand what the evidence is and what facts are actually in dispute,” he said.

“Unfortunately, after reading this filing, many Filipinos may conclude that what was submitted is not a flashlight, but a smokescreen,” Adiong, chairman of the House committee on suffrage and electoral reforms, said.

“Instead of bringing clarity, this filing appears to generate more questions than answers,” he added.

“The public is not asking for more pages. The public is asking for explanations. They want to know where public funds went. They want to know how questioned expenditures will be explained,” the senior administration lawmaker said.

“They want to know how allegations involving unexplained wealth will be addressed. They want to know how the evidence supporting the Articles of Impeachment will be rebutted,” he said.

“Those are the questions that matter, those are the questions ordinary Filipinos have been asking for months.”