Sara Duterte's impeachment lacks evidence? Premature to say —House prosecution

It is premature for the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte to insist that there is a lack of evidence in the impeachment case against her pending the presentation of evidence, the House prosecution panel said Monday.

The House prosecution panel was responding to the answer filed by the Vice President, saying that the Senate impeachment court should dismiss the case against her for lack of evidence, and that her supposed threat to the lives of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Leyte Representative Martin Romualdez was an exercise of her right to freedom of expression.

“It is premature for them to be raising a lack of evidence without first allowing the prosecution to present its evidence,” attorney Mae Divinagracia, one of the private lawyers assisting the prosecution team, said in a press conference.

“Kailangan munang tingnan ng impeachment court kung may ebidensiya o wala. Hindi sila puwedeng magsabi na walang ebidensiya na hindi binibigyan ng pagkakataon ang prosecution na ilatag ang ebidensiya nito,” she added.

(The Senate impeachment court has to see first if there is evidence or not. They cannot say there is no evidence without giving the prosecution a chance to present evidence.)

Another private prosecutor, lawyer Reynaldo Robles, echoed that position, saying the defense’s claim that there is no evidence does not have basis to begin with.

“Kaya tayo may trial para magkaroon ng pagkakataon ‘yung bawat panig, both ‘yung prosecution at ‘yung defense, para i-presenta ‘yung kani-kaniyang ebidensya,” he said.

(We have a trial for the prosecution and the defense to present their respective evidence.)

“Yung sinasabi po ng depensa na walang ebidensya, it does not make sense because the reason we have a trial is for both parties to present their evidence,” Robles added.

(The defense’s argument that there is lack of evidence does not make sense.)

House prosecutors Chel Diokno of Akbayan party-list and Leila de Lima of ML party-list, for their part, said the Constitution does not provide for outright dismissal of an impeachment case without deliberation on the evidence.

“The Constitution itself is very clear that once the House of Representatives has transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate’s mandate as an impeachment court is to proceed to trial forthwith. When the Constitution says there should be a trial, it means they will hear the evidence. As far as we are concerned, there is no room in the Constitution for that kind of mechanism [to dismiss the case outright due to lack of evidence],” Diokno said.

“The Senate is not an appeals court for the action made by the House of Representatives,” he added.

De Lima, on the other hand, said the Constitutional mandate of the Senate “is to try and decide impeachment cases.”

“The prosecution has the right to present evidence, prove its allegation. We are ready for that. The defenses should also be deliberated upon. That is why there is a need to present evidence so we can present the facts for the consideration of the impeachment court,” she said.

“The mandate of the Senate is, after listening to all the evidence, it could be conviction or acquittal,” she added.

No joke, no joke?

During the same press conference, Diokno and Robles also said that the Vice President’s defense that she was exercising freedom of speech in announcing that she already contracted somebody to kill the President and his family—and emphasizing "no joke, no joke"—would be best expressed with her taking the witness stand.

“It’s entirely the call of her defense panel [if she should take the witness stand], but I think the court would benefit from hearing her explain personally why she said those things that we all saw,” Diokno said.

“We are ready to cross-examine her if she comes out and testifies,” Diokno added.

Robles, on the other hand, argued that the Vice President taking on the witness stand to defend her video exercising “freedom of expression” is only logical.

“It is the call of the defense [if they want to present her], but let us not forget, she was the one in the video making the threats. Since she is invoking freedom of expression, that is personal to her, mas convincing or mas kapani-paniwala siguro kung maririnig din sa sarili niyang bibig yung kanyang ini-invoke na depensa,” Robles said.

(It would be more convincing or believable if we will hear her defense out of her mouth.)

House prosecution team spokesperson Zia Adiong of Lanao del Sur agreed.

“It will be better for the Vice President to show up in person because it will show that she respects the process and the Senate impeachment court,” Adiong said in a Balitanghali interview. —AOL/BM, GMA News