By Pexcel John Bacon again Kaela Patricia B. Gabriel
The prosecution team of the House of Representatives on Thursday defended its request to present evidence in the case of Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio, saying that accountability should take priority over opposing decisions, as it questioned the opposition of the judiciary in subpoenaing the Vice President’s financial records.
Manila lawyer Joel R. Chua said there is no reason to block the presentation of evidence if Ms. Duterte has nothing to hide.
“If there is nothing hidden, what is the reason for not allowing the presentation of evidence?” he told a news conference in Filipino. “That way, our citizens can see if there is enough or no evidence against our Vice President.”
He said impeachment is a constitutional process rather than a trial, adding that the Rules of Court serve only as a guide in the trial.
“We cannot use the strict implementation of the Rules of Court because this is not a court of law,” said Mr. Chua. “Accountability remains important here, and alongside accountability there is evidence.”
House prosecutor Lorna Patajo-Kapunan said Philippine laws see impeachment as an exception to bank secrecy laws, allowing the trial court to subpoena bank and tax records.
He mentioned the trial of former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, whose bank records were accepted as evidence, and said that the same principle applies in the case of Ms. Duterte.
“The impeachment case is different from the bank secrecy laws,” said Ms. Kapunan, adding that the defense will still have the opportunity to challenge the authenticity and validity of the documents before the trial court.
“The community also has the right to due process,” he said. “Prosecutors also have the right to due process to be able to present their case.”
The prosecutor also rejected the prosecutors’ argument that their request for bank and tax records amounted to a “fishing expedition” because the documents were not attached to the impeachment complaint.
Mr. Chua said that the matter has been overtaken by events because the case has been tried and the requests for subpoena have been identified in the case books.
Mrs. Kapunan added that impeachment complaints are only required to state the facts that ultimately support the charges, while documentary evidence is presented during the trial.
Meanwhile, the prosecutor said he expects to complete the presentation of evidence in the case of the trial involving allegations of intimidation and sedition on Tuesday with the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin A. Matibag.
Mrs. Kapunan said Mr. Matibag will discuss the status of the NBI investigation and verify the evidence, including a series of video recordings in which Ms. Duterte allegedly ordered someone to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., First Lady Louise Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualde if anything happened to her.
La Union lawyer Francisco Paolo P. Ortega V said the NBI official’s testimony will be important because he has access to the office’s records and other information related to the investigation.
“As the head of the bureau, he has access to all the records,” said Mr. Ortega. “There will be fireworks.”
GOVERNMENT POSTPONED
Meanwhile, the Senate impeachment court said it may not rule on Monday on the prosecutors’ request to subpoena Ms. Duterte’s financial records because the documents are related to the second issue of the trial, which will be heard later in the case.
The spokesperson for the prosecution of Reginald Tongol said that the parliament judges have the right to postpone the proceedings because the requested records are not needed immediately.
“We are waiting for a decision, but you must contribute to the fact that this evidence requested by the prosecutor is not urgent because it belongs to Article II,” said Mr. Tongol during the Zoom forum.
He noted that the trial court has already accepted the subpoenas of four witnesses under the original title of the trial after lead prosecutor Batangas Rep. Gerville R. Luistro ruled that they were released during the trial on Wednesday.
Mr. Tongol said requests involving financial records need to be carefully considered because they involve privacy and confidentiality laws.
He also noted that although the prosecutors had withdrawn six witnesses under the fourth article of the impeachment, this step will not shorten the entire trial because those witnesses or other evidence can still be presented under other articles.
Prosecutors presented two witnesses in the fourth chapter of the trial, including allegations that Mrs. Mr. Tongol said the prosecutors are expected to finish presenting the document’s evidence by the end of July.
