“For the record, she is not listed in the pre-trial order as witness and there is no reservation for a witness with her designation or background. So, for all intents and purposes, Justice Tang is a surprise witness which violates fair play and is prohibited under the rules,” Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan told the court.

He said the prosecution’s 9 September notice identified only Tang’s name, previous official function and the general purpose of her testimony, leaving the defense without enough information to anticipate what she would say.

“By asking for her interpretations on legal principles, she is poised to make conclusions of law that only this honorable impeachment court is allowed to make,” Vinluan added.

Prosecution: Witness will provide framework

Prosecutor Chel Diokno defended the move, saying Tang would not tell the court how to rule but would explain the country’s public accountability framework.

“She is going to testify as an expert on the public accountability framework of our country. With respect to the conclusions of law, she will not be making any conclusions of law,” Diokno said.

Diokno said Tang would explain concepts that prosecutors expect to become relevant as they present financial and government records, including how to assess wealth that does not correspond with legitimate income, indirect ownership of property, restrictions on public officials participating in business and the purpose of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

He said prosecutors wanted Tang to testify first so the court and the public could better understand the documents that would follow.

“In the coming days, there will be many documents that the court and the public will see — financial records, bank records, records from some government agencies — and it will be easier to understand why these things happened. That is why we want her to testify first,” Diokno said.

Court rejects defense bid

Senator-judges were divided over whether Tang should testify at this stage of the trial. Sen. Raffy Tulfo questioned the need for Tang’s testimony, noting that she had no personal knowledge of the unexplained wealth allegations, and suggested that she testify last.

Sen. Imee Marcos also questioned the prosecution’s description of Tang as a “disinterested” witness, noting that the subpoena was served at Diokno’s office at the Batasang Pambansa. Diokno said the arrangement was made for Tang’s security and privacy.

Meanwhile, Sen. Risa Hontiveros and Sen. Tito Sotto favored hearing Tang’s testimony, noting that the defense could cross-examine her and present its own experts.

The court later rejected the defense request to exclude Tang and allowed her to proceed, pointing to a provision in the pre-trial order reserving the right to present additional or substitute witnesses as circumstances warrant.

The court said prosecutors had committed to presenting 15 witnesses over 12 trial days but retained discretion over which witnesses to present and when.

The court also stressed that allowing Tang to testify did not mean it was accepting her views as authoritative.

“Although she may be qualified as an expert, subject to cross, whatever Justice Cabotaje-Tang will say is not binding on the courts, and her opinion is not conclusive upon the courts,” Presiding officer Francis Escudero said.

The Senate impeachment court on Monday shifted to Article II of Duterte’s four impeachment charges, which concerns allegations involving unexplained wealth, financial interests and the accuracy of her wealth declarations.###