Court rejects bid to compel VP response

The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday denied the prosecution’s bid to compel Vice President Sara Duterte to confirm the existence and authenticity of the subpoenaed bank, tax, and business records supposedly belonging to herself and her husband, Atty. Mans Carpio, amid the allegations of her unexplained wealth.

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero sustained the objection to stipulating the financial reports but denied the Duterte camp’s request to expunge the prosecution’s attempt to have them admitted into the court record.

The prosecution initially sought to admit 104 items, but later withdrew the request on the condition that the defense enter into stipulations, or a written agreement.

The records in question included Duterte’s and Carpio’s bank accounts, business interests, tax filings, and other personal financial documents obtained by the court under subpoenas.

The request would seek to support Article II of the Articles of Impeachment which accuses Duterte of acquiring unexplained wealth, failing to declare corporate assets, and making inaccurate declarations in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, or SALN.

Escudero, however, ruled that stipulations require the opposing party’s agreement. Amid the defense objection and concerns that the move could circumvent Duterte’s right against self-incrimination, Escudero said the impeachment court cannot compel Duterte’s camp to submit a written response to the request.

The presiding officer pointed out that Duterte’s right against self-incrimination remained protected even while she stood trial. Every person is entitled to this safeguard enshrined in the Bill of Rights (Article III of the Constitution) “even under the impeachment process,” Escudero stressed.

“If the request is allowed, ‘any material and relevant matter of fact’ so requested for answer will be ‘tantamount to compelling’ the respondent to be a witness against herself,” the court ruled.

Further, Escudero contended that the request, which would require Duterte to answer the issue under oath, would leave her vulnerable to perjury and constitutes a compulsion prohibited by the Constitution.

House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno said on Monday the request for admission would narrow the issues and expedite the trial by reducing the need to call witnesses to verify the subpoenaed documents.

Diokno proposed withdrawing the request if the defense agreed to stipulate the existence of the financial records, their authenticity, and that the competent banks produced them pursuant to a subpoena.

The impeachment court, however, said that any measures to fast-track the proceedings should not come at the expense of the respondent’s substantial rights provided by the Constitution.

“Procedural due process requires the prosecution to establish the charges through competent evidence, and that respondent be afforded a fair and meaningful opportunity to contest such evidence,” the ruling read.

“The prosecution cannot shift its burden of proof to the respondent through the simple expedient of a request for admission. To compel respondent to answer the request, under pain of having the matters therein deemed admitted, would undermine these safeguards,” it added.

Escudero also did not subscribe to the prosecution’s rationale that impeachment proceedings were not criminal prosecutions and were therefore not governed by the rules applied in criminal cases.

Diokno’s position contradicted defense lead counsel Sheila Sison’s argument that impeachment proceedings, though sui generis (of their own kind), were penal in nature and therefore made the self-incrimination clause applicable to the VP.

Citing a 2011 Supreme Court jurisprudence (Gutierrez vs House of Representatives Committee on Justice), Escudero concurred with the defense’s position that an impeachment trial was “analogous to a criminal trial, although it is not a criminal prosecution per se.”

Another SC decision he cited was In re Impeachment of Horrilleno (1992), where the High Court noted that “impeachment proceedings before courts had been described in other jurisdictions as highly penal in character.”

“To reiterate, Duterte v House of Representatives holds that the Bill of Rights applies throughout the impeachment process. Respondent’s right against self-incrimination under Article III, Section 17 must therefore be respected in this trial,” the ruling concluded.

Despite this, Escudero ruled that the prosecution’s request shall remain in the record as part of the impeachment proceedings, provided that the same shall have no evidentiary or prejudicial effect on the VP’s case.