He mentioned discussions during the proceedings appeared to have shifted toward arguments over legal technicalities and the assessment of evidence instead of directly addressing matters that could help establish the truth, including documents sought through subpoenas.
Public office a privilege
According to Cayosa, the proceedings should return to what he described as the “simple issue” of whether the acts attributed to the respondent amount to a betrayal of public trust.
Cayosa also emphasized that an impeachment conviction does not result in imprisonment, fines or deprivation of property.
“Public office is not property,” he said. “It is only a privilege. At any time, if you fail in your duties or abuse your authority, you can be removed from office,” adding, this principle applies to all public offices, especially the highest positions in government.”
The former IBP president also noted that some matters already discussed publicly, including videos that have circulated, should no longer be the subject of prolonged disputes if their authenticity or occurrence is already apparent.
Instead, Cayosa said, the impeachment court should determine whether those acts constitute a betrayal of public trust.