The impeachment trial against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte finally started on Monday after more than a year of delays, delivering on its promise to be an interesting joust between her supporters and defense lawyers on one hand and the prosecution on another.
With only 21 senator-judges present following the arrest of Rodante Marcoleta, the trial began with the determination of the impeachment court’s presiding officer. Pro-Duterte senator-judges, led by sibling Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano, tried to block the motion to install a presiding officer other than the Senate president but were outvoted.
Senator Francis Escudero was eventually voted by a majority of 12 against eight, while the vote of Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, then presiding over the first hour and a half of the trial, was not recorded.
Legal luminary Antonio La Vina said the choice of a lawyer as presiding officer saved two hours in today’s proceedings.
What the presiding officer said
Upon assuming the court’s chairmanship, Escudero delivered an opening statement outlining the responsibilities of the impeachment court.
The presiding senator-judge cited the 1987 Philippine Constitution mandating a concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate shall convict any respondent. “With 24 members of the Senate, a literal interpretation of this means that conviction requires the affirmative vote of at least 16 senator judges,” he said. He granted however that any interested party may seek the guidance of the Philippine Supreme Court on whether the threshold may be lowered based on the actual number of senator-judges present in the trial.
Secondly, Escudero said the quantum of proof required to sustain a judgment of conviction or acquittal will not be based on “proof beyond reasonable doubt” required in criminal trials. Instead, he said, “Decisions regarding whether to acquit or convict must be based upon clear charges supported by sufficiently clear and convincing evidence,” acknowledging that fellow senator-judges have some leeway in their determination of Duterte’s guilt or innocence.
Lastly, Escudero said he will allow some degree of liberality in applying rules in resolving questions of procedure and evidence. “[T]he rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding,” he said.
What the prosecution said
Chief prosecutor Gerville Luistro of the Philippine House of Representatives (HOR) played to the public in addressing the impeachment court almost entirely in the Filipino language. She denied the impeachment trial is to persecute Duterte but to answer the question if accountability still means something in the Philippines.
“The prosecution will present exactly what the Constitution requires. Evidence. Not gossip, not speculation, not propaganda, and especially not social narrative,” Luistro said. She added that the prosecution is ready with its evidence, official records, financial documents, government reports, video recordings, statements under oath, and independent findings of institutions.
What the defense said
As expected, Duterte absented herself from the first day of the trial. Instead, lawyer Sheila Sison spoke in behalf of her defense team, citing their client’s substantial mandate of 32 million votes in the 2022 presidential elections. Sison said President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and each of the public prosecutors do not have as many votes “who now are here to prosecute her and seek to undo these people’s choice.”
Sison went further by accusing the prosecutors, legislator-members of the HOR, of themselves failing to be accountable to the people; serving with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice; and leading modest lives. “[The] Constitution does not only speak to the Vice President. It also demands the same standards from the prosecutors,” Sison added in her broadside.
The defense lawyer proceeded to accuse that the prosecution “curated purported pieces of evidence to construct a narrative against the Vice President. “The articles of impeachment presented before this Court as an exercise of the House’s power to initiate impeachment cases are therefore, in sober truth, the product of an impermissible intrusion of clear constitutional boundaries,” she said.
Clamor at the gates
Outside the Senate premises, the police violently prevented hundreds of pro-accountability advocates from holding a rally close to the gates. Using the edge of their steel shields, the officers hit several activists, causing head injuries.
The Philippine National Police, however, did not bother Duterte supporters also holding an activity in the area.
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan secretary general Mong Palatino said that based on the presented articles of impeachment, there is no logical outcome but a guilty verdict. The trial must serve as a lesson to all government officials who steal public funds, he added.
What the impeachment promises
The impeachment court adjourned after more than three hours of preliminaries and debates. It will resume at two o’clock today
In this afternoon’s hearing, the court shall accept lists of witnesses from both the prosecution and defence, as well as pieces of evidence they wish to submit.
As a country with a long tradition of jurisprudence, the impeachment trial promises to be a good study for law students, legal professionals and followers of courtroom drama. It will run for at least 92 days, three days a week.
What is notable in the proceedings, however, is the fact that it is a legal brawl between a vice president accused of corruption and public prosecutors from an institution widely believed by Filipinos to be corrupt itself. # (Raymund B. Villanueva)