Tang challenge would have been premature — Poa
‘While the purpose was indicated in the subpoena, the extent of her testimony, including whether the witness would testify on factual matters, was unknown to the defense.’
‘While the purpose was indicated in the subpoena, the extent of her testimony, including whether the witness would testify on factual matters, was unknown to the defense.’
The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte said it deliberately did not seek to quash the subpoena issued to retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, saying the move would have been premature before the prosecution had disclosed the full scope of her testimony.
Defense spokesperson Atty. Michael Poa said the team did not know whether Cabotaje-Tang would testify on factual matters relevant to the Articles of Impeachment or on other matters when the subpoena was issued.
“While the purpose was indicated in the subpoena, the extent of her testimony, including whether the witness would testify on factual matters, was unknown to the defense,” Poa told reporters in a text message on Tuesday.
Cabotaje-Tang testified on Monday, mainly on questions of law.
Senate impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol earlier said the defense could have challenged Cabotaje-Tang’s subpoena through a motion to quash before she took the witness stand, after defense lawyer Mark Vinluan argued that she was not identified in the pretrial order and that they had not been given sufficient information about her testimony beforehand.
“To ensure due process for the party opposing the issuance of the subpoena, the respondent’s counsel should have filed a motion to quash the subpoena at the appropriate time, before the witness took the stand, which they were not able to do,” Tongol said in a post-trial press conference on Monday.
“For whatever reason they took that course of action rather than filed a motion to quash, I don’t have personal knowledge of why they chose that path,” he added.
The defense instead chose to wait for the prosecution’s offer of testimony, which Poa said was the appropriate point to determine whether an objection was warranted.
“For all we know, the prosecution could have offered her testimony for other factual matters relative to the Articles of Impeachment,” Poa said.
He also said that filing a motion so close to Cabotaje-Tang’s scheduled appearance would have required the court to entertain another motion and an exchange of pleadings, potentially slowing the trial.
“Owing to the nature of the trial and the proximity of her presentation, filing a motion to quash would have burdened the court with a motion and the corresponding exchange of pleadings. We do not want to contribute to any delay,” Poa said.
