Senator-judges need not defer to Escudero rulings —lawyer

Senator-judges should not simply defer to rulings issued by Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero when they disagree with them, lawyer Rico Domingo said Sunday, arguing that the judges can assert their position through a vote.

Domingo said Escudero’s role as presiding officer does not prevent the other senator-judges from challenging his rulings or expressing a contrary position during the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

“The presiding officer is presiding officer only. If ang ibang mga senator-judges ay may contrary opinion doon sa sinasabi ng presiding officer, pwede naman nilang ilagay ’yan sa boto,” Domingo said in a radio interview.

The impeachment court had earlier deferred a request to subpoena Trillanes. The prosecution subsequently said it would no longer present him as a witness. The court has denied that there was an effort to prevent him from testifying, while Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said the decision not to subpoena Trillanes was not made by Escudero alone.

For Domingo, however, the episode illustrates a larger issue: senator-judges should exercise their own authority when they believe a ruling by the presiding officer is incorrect.

“Dapat naman talaga ang senator-judges should really be able to tell the presiding officer, ‘Mukha yatang hindi namin gusto ’yan,’ at gagawin natin, iboboto natin ’yan kung puwedeng pumasa o hindi,” he said.

Domingo cited the court’s earlier dispute over the number of votes required to convict Duterte as an example of how senator-judges could question a ruling.

Escudero initially ruled that 16 affirmative votes, or two-thirds of the full 24-member Senate, would be required for conviction. The issue was later subjected to a vote by the senator-judges, with the court ultimately adopting a different counting method based on senators actively participating in the trial.

Domingo said the original ruling should have been challenged sooner if senator-judges disagreed with it. “From the first July 6 hearing, sinabi kaagad ng presiding officer, ‘Ito ang threshold.’ Walang kumuwestyon,” he said, noting that the issue was raised only months later.

He said the same principle should apply to disputes involving witnesses and evidence.

Domingo argued that the senator-judges should not leave the resolution of such disputes entirely to the presiding officer.

He acknowledged that senator-judges may have reasons for allowing the presiding officer’s rulings to stand, including maintaining the credibility of the court’s leadership, but said this should not prevent them from voting against a ruling they believe is wrong.

“Ba’t wala pa akong naririnig?” Domingo said, referring to the absence of a stronger challenge from the other senator-judges.

Domingo said the ability of senator-judges to independently assess rulings is important because the impeachment court ultimately has to decide the case collectively. He said the presiding officer’s rulings should therefore remain subject to the judgment of the senator-judges who will eventually vote on Duterte’s fate.

The court is expected to deal with objections involving the admissibility and confidentiality of records as the prosecution presents witnesses from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, banks, insurance companies and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.