House prosecutors: Evidence vs. Sara Duterte will overcome Senate scrutiny

The 11-member House prosecution panel for the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday expressed confidence that the senator-judges will allow them to present their evidence and it will survive the Senate’s scrutiny.

In a press conference, lead prosecutor and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro commended the Senate for responding to the mandate of the 1987 Constitution and convening as an impeachment court.

“Nevertheless, let us all be reminded that trial is mandated to be forthwith. Trial means presentation of evidence, presentation of witnesses, which will lead to decision of either conviction or acquittal. We look forward in presenting all the evidence for the prosecution,” she said.

Luistro made the remarks a day after the Senate convened as an impeachment court.

“For confidential fund, we wish to express our confidence in proving this article, establishing the guilt of the respondent. We have seen the evidence as early as during the 19th Congress during the inquiry in aid of legislation of the committee on good government and public accountability,” she said.

Luistro cited the testimony from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) about the fictitious names “appearing in the documents evidencing payment.”

She also pointed to the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) testimony about signatures which “appear to have been authored by only few a number of persons.”

“We can also include the notices of disallowance recently issued by the COA (Commission on Audit),” Luistro added.

For his part, prosecutor and Iloilo 3rd District Rep. Lorenz Defensor noted that the Vice President’s issuance of a death threat to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and ex-Speaker and Leyte 1st District Rep. Martin Romualdez is clearly an impeachable offense.

“We have more evidence and witnesses to present and we are certain that once the evidence is presented in the Senate impeachment court, we can secure a conviction even for this article alone,” he said.

Although they recognized that the Senate impeachment court has the discretion over which evidence to accept for the trial, the prosecutors assured that the evidence against Duterte is meritorious enough to secure the Senate impeachment court’s clearance.

“Hindi kami nag-aalala na ang ebidensiya namin ay haharangin sa impeachment trial. Kung haharangin ang aming ebidensiya, remember that we are not the ones on trial. Huhusgahan rin ng bayan ang senator-judges,” Defensor said.

(We are not worried that our evidence would be blocked at the impeachment trial. If our evidence is blocked, remember that we are not the ones on trial. The country will judge the senator-judges.)

“While we will give them utmost respect, siguradong ang pagtingin ng taumbayan sa isang impeachment court na hindi papayag na ilabas ang ebidensiya ay makapagpapabago ng damdamin ng mga Pilipino (we are sure that the regard of the people for an impeachment court that will not allow evidence to be presented will change Filipinos’ sentiment). We’re not worried. We’re prepared to present our evidence. They (senator-judges) will be the ones to judge us,” he added.

Luistro said they are supposed to submit the list of witnesses and the list of evidence that will be presented during the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence.

“Although I understand that if the evidence is not yet available during the pre-trial, so long as we can justify the same, it may be presented still before the impeachment court, but that will be subject to the approval, of course, of the impeachment court,” she added.

Akbayan Party-list Rep. Jose Manuel Diokno and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua, also members of the prosecution panel, agreed that the Senate impeachment court’s discretion has limits.

“The decision on the admissibility of evidence is made by the Senate as an impeachment court, but the discretion to present evidence is the call of the prosecution. The court cannot interfere with that discretion. Kaya sa simula pa lang, kung gusto po namin magtawag ng witness o kaya magpresent ng mga dokumento, ay nasa sa prosecution po ‘yan (So from the start, if we want to call a witness or present a document, that’s up to the prosecution),” Diokno said.

He added: “Later on, whether how the Senate will evaluate that evidence or whether they will admit it, it will be subject of course to arguments on both sides and then a decision by the court.”

Chua noted that the Senate impeachment court will only disallow irrelevant evidence.

“In presenting the evidence, the court will not really allow anything to be submitted as evidence. You have to cite the purpose and relevance of the evidence you want to present. Pag walang relevance ang ebidensya na ipapresenta mo sa issue, hindi talaga natatanggapin ng korte (If the evidence has no relevance to the issue being presented, the court will not accept it),” Chua said.

For his part, prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said the House prosecution panel will ultimately earn every vote needed for the conviction.

"We will have to fight for each and every piece of evidence when we reach that point. But we have absolute faith in our senator-judges that they will look at each and every piece of evidence, each witness, based on how they appreciate the case itself. That is what we are holding on to," Ridon said.

Prosecutor and ML Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima echoed Ridon’s confidence that the senator-judges will decide based on merit, because they have the mandate to exhibit political neutrality.

“If you will note in the rules itself of the Senate on impeachment trial, they are actually expected to exhibit political neutrality. So they have to fulfill their duty without unfair discrimination and without regard to political color or affiliation,” said the former senator and justice secretary.

During the same press conference, Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores said he remains fit to serve as a prosecutor, stressing that he is convinced of the merits of the allegations against the Vice President despite abstaining from the impeachment vote last May 11.

“I was nominated and elected. And after that, I took on the role as public prosecutor. I yield to the collective wisdom of the members of the House when they elected me. There were personal and political reasons for abstaining," he said.

"I think it cannot be denied that there are a lot of people in Mindanao who are actually for the Vice President, and that played a factor in my decision to abstain. But it wasn't about the [merits of the] articles of impeachment,” Flores said.

He clarified that his decision to abstain from the impeachment vote was not a reflection of his view on the substance of the charges against the Vice President.

“But that [abstention] wasn't because of the [lack of merits of the] articles of impeachment. I could not in good conscience vote against the articles of impeachment because I was present all along when the Committee on Justice heard the evidence presented," he said.

"It is an easy decision [to be a prosecutor]. I'm taking on the role because not only was I elected but because I also saw what was presented before the Committee on Justice,” Flores added.

Ridon then vouched for Flores’ competence as a prosecutor.

“I don't think we have any doubt on the confidence, integrity, and expertise of Congressman Flores to take on the role of public prosecutor,” Ridon said.

“The choice and selection, election of the public prosecutor is based on their experience as a public servant and a lawyer, and we find Congressman Flores to be competent to serve as prosecutor,” Ridon added.— JMA/MCG, GMA News