Defense hoping for chance to rebut
Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team continues to hope for an opportunity to present their witnesses to counter the allegations on confidential funds and grave threats that the prosecutors made and then abandoned in her impeachment trial.
Defense lawyer Michael Poa said the team had yet to decide whether to present evidence to counter the withdrawn charges, as it would consult with Duterte and work out how to comply with the impeachment court’s ruling limiting the defense’s presentation to the remaining charge of unexplained wealth.
“Well, honestly, right now we’re not saying we will or won’t do it. But obviously, like we said in open court, that’s how we see it, since the prosecution presented evidence on these matters and maybe some witnesses made statements against our client, we think we should be given a chance to respond to that in court,” Poa said.
On 13 October, the Senate impeachment court accepted the prosecution’s withdrawal of Article I on the misuse of confidential funds, Article III on bribery, and Article IV on an assassination plot, grave threats and inciting to sedition against the President.
Only Article II remains on unexplained wealth, including the alleged failure to disclose assets in the Vice President’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) and the non-divestment of business interests despite the constitutional prohibition.
“We want to streamline the presentation at least, make sure that whatever we present will still be relevant even if it might seem to be rebuttal evidence on the confidential funds,” Poa said in a radio interview on Saturday.
“We need to tweak our strategy a bit now, although we would have wanted to go on with our initial plans to present our evidence,” he added.
Poa said the defense would have to establish the relevance of any proposed evidence to the remaining proceedings, acknowledging that the prosecutors could object if the material addressed only the withdrawn charges.
“It’s not simply a matter of getting it inserted just because it falls under Article I on confidential funds,” he said.
He said that statements made in interviews and press conferences could not replace the testimony of witnesses with direct knowledge of the allegations.
“For us, being in a courtroom is still a different matter altogether,” Poa said, adding that some potential witnesses would need to be summoned and could not simply be invited to speak at a press conference.
“What if we have witnesses that we actually want or were planning to have silenced? Well, they’re not exactly people we know, right? They’re not the kind of folks we can bring along to the press conference,” he said.
No decision to boycott trial
The defense lawyer dismissed speculation the defense would stop participating in the proceedings following the setbacks, including the Senate’s ruling on the voting threshold.
He said he had not discussed the option with Duterte, although any move to withdraw would depend on the Vice President and require the defense to weigh the consequences.
“If we don’t participate, it’s as if we’re waiving our opportunity to even present on Article II,” he said.
“Even if they (senator-judges) already have the votes, if we present our evidence well, maybe we can still change some minds. So I think it’s too early for us to say the votes are gone. Although, of course, we’re not naive about this. We know this is both a legal and political game,” Poa said.
“The endgame is an acquittal or conviction. Of course, we’re hoping for an acquittal. Now, if we lose the vote on the threshold, and the withdrawal gets approved, I want to believe it’s the court’s wisdom. But for us, it doesn’t mean that just because all your motions get denied in a regular court trial, you’ve automatically lost. So we’re not giving up,” he said.