A verbal dispute arose on the 29th day of the impeachment trial at the Senate as the prosecution and defense disagreed on the use of the term “accused” when referring to Vice President Sara Duterte.

Public prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno raised the matter prior to the scheduled oral arguments on the reduction of the threshold to either convict or acquit Duterte in the trial.

He pointed out that defense lawyer Atty. Sheila Sison had used the term accused to introduce herself as a counsel of the Vice President during the proceedings that were held on Tuesday, 22 September.

“I was surprised yesterday morning when the counsel for the respondent introduced herself as counsel for the accused. We all know that this is not a criminal proceeding. This is a sui generis proceeding,” Diokno said.

The lawmaker warned that the use of the term “accused” in the trial would “condition the minds” of the public into thinking that the constitutional process was “criminal in nature.”

In line with his assertions, Diokno moved to strike Sison’s statement wherein she used the term from the official records of the court.

Defending her use of the word, the lead defense lawyer said that while she acknowledged that process was constitutional, she argued that the charges that were contained in the Articles of Impeachment were criminal.

“Even though the prosecution feels that this is not a criminal action per se, the Articles of Impeachment will show that the charges are criminal in nature,” she said.

Diokno insisted, however, that the case they were participating in was “not a criminal case by any stretch” as there was no criminal liability that was part of the case.

He stressed that the only matter being tested in the trial was Duterte’s fitness as a public official and whether she should be removed from office.

“It would be improper and it may even lead to misconceptions if the respondent’s counsel were to refer to the Vice President as the accused,” the lawmaker explained.

With the insinuation that the same would lead to misconceptions, Sison protested that a statement that posed a “greater danger” to the interpretation of the public on the impeachment was the claim that there was no presumption of innocence in the trial.

Reiterating his point, Diokno said that such presumptions were only applicable to criminal proceedings.

As neither party yielded to either’s perspective on the issue, presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero issued a formal ruling on the matter to put an end to the “intramurals.”

Checking the Senate’s transcript, Escudero said that Sison had referred to Duterte as a “respondent-accused” contrary to Diokno’s initial observation.

The senator also noted that legal precedent had established that impeachment as a process was legal, given the fact that its resolution could lead to the dismissal of a public official from their office.

“Impeachment is primarily a legal process in the sense that like administration cases, it results in the removal of a public officer and like criminal cases it requires evidentiary rules and due process,” he said.

Escudero likewise said that the motion of Diokno to strike from the record the statement of Sison was formally denied.