Much ado over nothing

The central question before the impeachment court is whether those remarks amounted to an impeachable “high crime” or were merely emotional, non-actionable statements made in the context of concern for her family’s safety.

According to Atty. Israelito Torreon, Jose Maria College Foundation Inc. College of Law dean, there is a phrase in the Visayan dialect that perfectly illustrates the huge waste of time this article of impeachment is and it has to do with a fish swimming around aimlessly.

He said that granting for the sake of argument that it constitutes a minor crime, it still does not constitute a ground for impeachment.

Torreon laid down the basis for his argument, doubting that a grave threat was really made, as the prosecution was not emphasizing the context of VP Duterte’s statement: “If I’m already dead, I will kill you.”

How can there be a crime if she’s already dead? Her threat would only take effect once she had moved to the afterlife.

The prosecution, according to Torreon, forgot to establish the origin of VP Duterte’s outburst.

It took a non-lawyer, Senator Robin Padilla, to emphasize that. The one who actually recorded the conversation should be the one presented in evidence, based on the law.

What the prosecutors were showing was only what could be seen on social media.

“How would you prove that it was not infected by artificial intelligence? How would you prove that it had not been edited or that it had not been amended? So what they were proving is a statement that was already spread or can be seen on social media,” Torreon asserted.

What should be presented is the original or the very file that was taken of the Vice President.

“With the advent of artificial intelligence, you can alter statements, so there may be interventions. That’s why it was important for the prosecution to prove the origin of the original tape, who took the tape recording, and show the chain of custody, how it was preserved and then how it was presented in court,” the veteran court lawyer said.

It appeared that the House prosecutors assumed that if they could prove what can be seen on social media, a video recording would already be admissible in a court trial.

Even the presentation of a witness, National Bureau of Investigation agent John Mark Calilung, did not mitigate the inherent weakness of the prosecution’s case.

Torreon also saw a flaw in the prosecutors’ failure to produce the person who interviewed Duterte or anyone who was present during the actual interview.

Senator Padilla asked about the witness’s credentials, which experienced lawyers should seek.

A defense counsel would normally, and almost always, question a witness’ expertise and capacity to testify.

So Senator Padilla was right when he raised that matter. It was a valid issue that should have been raised, Torreon held.

While impeachment is inherently a political process, the procedure for proving the grounds for removal must adhere to established legal standards.

“The impeachment proceedings must follow the rules of evidence. That is why the Rules of Court apply in a suppletory manner,” Torreon said.

He argued that the prosecution committed a fundamental mistake by claiming victory after presenting a video that was already publicly available.

“They declared they had already won because they presented the video. But they overlooked the fact that it was already in the public domain,” Torreon said.

That’s a classic case of counting their chickens before they hatch.