Members of the House Prosecution panel said that they felt like the interruptions in the opening statement of Rep. Leila de Lima was a wasted opportunity for the public to understand the premise of Article I in the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte at the Senate.

Relating with the objections raised against De Lima, House Lead Prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro stated that making conclusions of law was something that prosecutors could not help but do given their position on the trial.

Luistro explained that her colleague completely understood the position of impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero concerning the matter, particularly as it was the precedent that had been set in earlier hearings.

“She’s very much okay. As a matter of fact, I even told her that the few questions she raised before she was interrupted were very powerful. I think she anticipated that even during the start because she was forewarned at the onset about not making conclusions of fact and conclusion of law,” she said.

House prosecutors Rep. Lorenz Defensor and Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong expressed similar sentiments on the interference of the Mamamayang Liberal Partylist representative, noting that explaining technical matters such as confidential funds was necessary for better interpretation.

Defensor, for his part, mentioned that it was a wasted opportunity to express the alleged crime that they sought to be charged against the Vice President while also setting the expectation for the evidence that will be presented to prove the same.

“Hopefully as the prosecution and defense teams, we should be allowed to freely advocate for our position. The senator-judges are not obligated to give evidentiary weight to such statements. Hopefully we can manifest and freely advocate our position to support our case for conviction or acquittal,” he said.

Meanwhile, Adiong said that De Lima’s delivery of a majority of her preliminary remarks in Tagalog was the “perfect chance” for ordinary Filipinos to understand Article I.

“I think it’s a lost opportunity for the public to appreciate and understand fully what the premise of Article I is. It would have been a perfect opportunity for the public to understand why the evidence was being laid out,” the representative from Lanao Del Sur explained.

During the 10th day of the impeachment trial on Wednesday, 29 July, De Lima sought to establish that the use of funds in a confidential manner was not an excuse for public officials to evade “transparency, scrutiny, and accountability” on how the amount was spent.

The solon further maintained that confidential funds were meant to protect “legitimate” operations and informants rather than shielding corruption in government.

She stressed that the fact that the amount was deemed “confidential” meant that it should be held to an even higher standard of responsibility.

“Public office is public trust. That was what was stated in the Constitution. This encapsulates everyone in government,” she said.

On the same day, the prosecutors presented their first two witnesses that came from Landbank facilities where the OVP and DepEd withdrew a total amount of P612.5 million that were allegedly part of confidential funds.