Chiz keeps 5-day witness rule



Malacañang on Tuesday again criticized Senator Imee Marcos for what it described as an attempt to help Vice President…

Palace press officer, Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro, has once again hit Senator Imee…

National Cinema Day promises a one-day-only surprise as cinema stakeholders unite to bring Filipinos back to the big…

Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, former head of Vice President Sara Duterte’s security detail, said on Tuesday he was…

A P150,000 discrepancy in the Office of the Vice President’s confidential fund records was traced to expenses an…
“Let’s stick to what was originally agreed on, and by way of exception, as the need arises, we will cross the bridge when we get there.”
This was the order issued by impeachment court presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero Tuesday amid concerns by both the prosecution and the defense over the rule requiring counsels to disclose intended witnesses five days before their scheduled testimony.
The issue arose during the 18th day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial after the court learned that former Department of Education special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda was still recovering from a medical condition.
Fajarda was scheduled to testify on 25 August but this was moved to 7 September to give him more time to recover.
With the prosecution forced to call another witness in his place, defense counsel Sheila Sison argued that the change ran counter to the rules agreed upon by the court.
Escudero clarified that the five-day notice requirement applied only to witnesses not included in the pre-trial order.
“When we check the transcript, just to make sure, the five-day notice rule applies to witnesses not mentioned in the pre-trial order. In regard to witnesses mentioned in the pre-trial order — it will not apply,” Escudero said.
Sison questioned whether the clarification would create confusion and affect future witnesses.
“My concern is that if this is the new rule moving forward, it would seem to me that there would be no more period or prior period to be observed in relation to the disclosure of witnesses for the following days,” she said.