Duterte defense: Dropping charges cannot silence rebuttal

Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team on Tuesday insisted on its right to rebut three impeachment charges the Senate has allowed the House prosecution to drop, arguing that she should be able to challenge allegations already aired before the court.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison pushed back after the impeachment court ruled that Duterte need not present evidence against the withdrawn articles because they would no longer be put to a vote, leaving only the charge of unexplained wealth for the senator-judges to decide.

“They presented their evidence. The court allowed them time, gave them opportunity, gave them platform, but now, since they withdrew, your vice president can no longer speak or defend herself from those allegations,” said Sison.

“Just for the record, your honor, we find that not only a bit unfair, I would say, it's completely unfair,” the lead defense councel added.

House lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro had manifested that the prosecution would no longer pursue Article I on the alleged misuse of confidential funds, Article III on bribery and Article IV on alleged grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Only Article II, which concerns allegations that Duterte failed to fully declare her assets and divest from business interests, will remain for the court’s consideration.

The Senate impeachment court subsequently approved the withdrawal, ruling that Duterte would no longer be required to present evidence or witnesses to answer the three charges because they would not be submitted to the senator-judges for a vote or verdict.

‘She deserves to be heard’

Senator-judge Joel Villanueva, however, said he believed Duterte should still have an opportunity to speak before the impeachment court about the withdrawn charges.

“Mataas po ‘yung aking reservation na binibigyan ng opportunity ‘yung respondent to speak freely dun sa tatlong articles na inabandon because I believe she also deserves to be heard here in this court kahit inabandon na,” Villanueva said.

Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano also questioned the prosecution’s decision to withdraw the three articles after presenting evidence on the charges.

“Kung lahat tinuloy, o lahat winithdraw, wala tayong problema. Kung ’yung lahat ng winithdraw hindi ka pa nag-present ng evidence, wala din tayong problema. Pero ang problema natin nag-present ka na eh hanggang dulo eh. Then you’re gonna insist that malakas pa rin ’yung case niyo on all four cases,” said Cayetano.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano, meanwhile, said she was surprised by the prosecution’s decision and believed the defense had also been caught off guard.

“Give them time to decide how they want to avail of thhis benefit or this right that this court would like to give them that they can speak about it now on public,” she added.

Rule 18 lifted

While the court ruled that Duterte need not present evidence on the withdrawn articles, presiding officer Chiz Escudero also announced that the sub judice rule would no longer apply to them, allowing both sides to discuss the allegations publicly.

Rule 18 had required parties, their lawyers and witnesses to refrain from public comments on the merits of matters pending before the impeachment court.

With the three articles no longer subject to adjudication, Escudero said the restrictions would no longer cover them.

“Upon the effectivity of this order, the separate merits of Articles I, III, and IV are no longer pending for adjudication. Accordingly, the prosecutors, the respondent, their respective counsels, and witnesses may publicly address, explain, and respond to any matter contained in those withdrawn articles,” Escudero continued.

He specifically noted that Duterte could defend herself outside the courtroom because she would no longer need to answer the allegations through the presentation of evidence before the impeachment court.

The ruling drew an objection from Sison, who warned that relaxing the restrictions in the middle of the trial could undermine the integrity of the proceedings.

“The essence of the sub judice rule really is not limited to the practical value of regulating the proceeding. It actually goes into the integrity or maintaining the integrity of the proceedings,” Sison said.