Barbers: Prosecution believes BIR box should be unsealed, marked as evidence

The House Prosecution Panel will insist on the opening and marking of the box containing the tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband Manases Carpio during Duterte's impeachment trial, House Impeachment adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers said Wednesday.

At the pre-trial conference, the Duterte camp did not agree to the unsealing and marking of the box as evidence, but said it would agree to the opening of the box in an executive session.

The box is believed to contain Duterte and Carpio's income tax returns as well as those of their businesses.

Barbers said the contents of the box—which was submitted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to the House Committee on Justice and turned over to the impeachment court—should be seen by the public.

"Unang-una, yung BIR box na yan, isang controversial na ebidensya na dapat, sa paniniwala at paninindigan ng prosecution team, dapat mailatag at makita ito ng ating mga kababayan," he said in an online interview.

(First of all, the BIR box is a controversial piece of evidence that the prosecution team believes should be opened to be seen by the Filipino people.)

"Ganunpaman, naiintindihan din natin na ang panig ng depensa ay mag-o-object at tututol sa pagpapalabas nito sa publiko," he added.

(But we understand that the defense will object to the contents' being shown to the public.)

"Para sa akin, personal na opinion, naniniwala ako na dapat siguro, ito ay makikita sa open court kasi ebidensya ito na magpapatibay doon sa alegasyon. At kung ito naman ay hindi mabigat na ebidensya para patunayan yung alegasyon ng prosekusyon, eh magiging magandang depensa ito naman sa panig ng defense. So it will work both ways, either favorably to the prosecution team or favorably to the defense team. So dapat makita ito in an open court," Barbers said.

(For me, in my personal opinion I believe that it should be seen in open court because it is evidence that could support the allegations. And if it turns out that the contents are not important evidence to support the prosecution's allegations, then it would be good for the defense.)

The former Surigao del Norte congressman added that the prosecutors will also urge the participation of private prosecutors in the examination of witnesses and evidence. Both proposals will be included in the prosecution's comment to the Senate Impeachment Court's pre-trial order.

Private prosecutors

Barbers said the private prosecutors must be allowed to examine witnesses and pieces of evidence during Duterte's impeachment trial.

"Kasi hindi naman bago yan [It wouldn't be anything new]. In the previous impeachment proceedings, talaga namang pinayagan ang private at, [it was allowed that private and] of course, ang public prosecutor to actively participate in the examination of the evidence, as well as the witnesses. So hindi ito bago and I don't see any reason why they will object to this or the other side will object to this," Barbers stated.

Another issue that the Senate Impeachment Court must resolve, Barbers said, is who will be the court's presiding officer.

"Only the impeachment court will be able to resolve these issues. Isa ngang mabigat na issue na dapat talakayin [It's an important issue that should be discussed] on the first day of trial ay kung sino yung magpe-preside. So napakaimportante noon. So this is what the panel expects on the first day of trial on July 6," he said.

16 votes to convict?

Barbers was also asked about the possibility of lowering the 16-vote threshold to convict an impeachable official in light of the arrest warrants already issued or may be issued against senators.

"Following the arguments in the Avelino v. Cuenco doctrine, kung walang coercive jurisdiction sa mga senator-judges o sa mga senador o sa Senate, yung ibang miyembro, siguro dapat mag-adjust. Yun lang ang aking personal opinion," Barbers said.

(If there is no coercive jurisdiction on the senator-judges or the senators or the Senate, then it should probably be adjusted. That's just my personal opinion.)

"Saan ka naman nakakita ng isang husgado, isang hukom na magde-decide sa isang kasong napakalaki, napakaimportante na hindi naman niya nakita ang ebidensya, hindi niya na-appreciate, nakita ang demeanor ng mga witnesses, hindi niya nakita at narinig yung mga sagot tungkol sa issues na ina-allege," Barbers added.

(Where have you seen that a judge, a court would decide on an important case without his seeing the evidence, without seeing the demeanor of the witnesses, or seeing and hearing the answers to the issues that are being alleged?)

Of the senator-judges, one is currently detained and another is at large. — BM, GMA News