Defense objections to Sara Duterte evidence part of legal process — UP law expert

The formal objections raised by the defense team regarding the prosecution's evidence in the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte are a standard component of the legal process and do not automatically mean the evidence will be excluded, according to a constitutional law expert.

Paolo Tamase, associate dean and assistant professor at the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law, clarified in an early morning radio interview that the Senate impeachment court holds the sole authority to rule on the admissibility of all evidence presented before senators can consider them in determining the Vice President's conviction or acquittal.

"The formal offer of evidence is the stage in which the prosecution seeks the admission of documents and other evidence presented during the trial, while the defense is given the opportunity to challenge their admissibility," Tamase explained.

He noted that the defense is legally permitted to object to evidence on two grounds: a clear lack of relevance to the impeachment charges or failure to comply with established rules of evidence.

Tamase emphasized the importance of this procedure, stating, "Even if the evidence was presented during the trial, if it is not admitted during the formal offer, the Senate cannot consider it when it makes its decision."

Consequently, he said it is expected for Duterte's defense counsel to oppose as much of the prosecution's evidence as possible as part of its duty to provide competent representation.

However, Tamase cautioned the public and observers against misinterpreting these standard legal maneuvers, noting that objections should not be viewed as definitive proof that the evidence is invalid or that the defense's arguments are automatically meritorious.

The legal expert also questioned a specific procedural argument raised by the defense, which contended that certain pieces of evidence should be excluded simply because they were not explicitly attached to the original impeachment complaint filed before the House of Representatives.

The defense characterized the prosecution's presentation of such evidence as a "fishing expedition."

But Tamase said the argument was difficult to reconcile with the defense's earlier complaint that the House proceedings had effectively become a mini-trial.

He said impeachment proceedings are not identical to ordinary criminal cases and are intended to allow the presentation of evidence relevant to the charges.

"Precisely, this is the opportunity to present all the available evidence," he said.

He also disputed the argument that evidence involving transactions or events outside Duterte's term as vice president should automatically be excluded.

Tamase said such evidence could still be relevant in establishing a baseline or showing a pattern in the transactions being examined.

He said the Senate would have to rule on the prosecution's formal offer when the trial resumes and determine which pieces of evidence would be admitted.

Those rulings would be important because the defense would then have to respond to the evidence that the Senate considers admissible.

Tamase said objections should not automatically be viewed as delaying tactics, as challenges to the admissibility of evidence are a regular part of trial proceedings.

He added, however, that the Senate should remember that an impeachment court is not a regular court and that impeachment proceedings have a distinct legislative component.

Unlike ordinary criminal proceedings, impeachment trials may involve the presentation of information and evidence that did not necessarily form part of the initial complaint.

He cited the Senate's impeachment history, in which evidence such as the so-called second envelope and dollar accounts became significant issues during the proceedings, illustrating how impeachment trials can bring out information beyond what was initially presented.

The important consideration, he said, was to ensure that the defense was given a fair opportunity to examine and answer the evidence presented against Duterte.

He also stressed that the defense's role was to challenge evidence on behalf of its client, while the Senate would ultimately decide whether the objections had legal merit.

"The fact that the defense objected does not mean it is right," he said.