Senate impeachment court denies Luistro’s bid to arraign Duterte

MANILA, Philippines — The first clash between the prosecution and the defense panels in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte ended in a win for the defense, as the Senate impeachment court denied the prosecution’s motion to read the charges and hold an arraignment of Duterte.

During the first day of trial on Monday, lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro moved that Duterte be arraigned under the Senate rules on impeachment, including Rule No. 7, which allows arraignment when a respondent fails to appear or submit an answer.

“Your Honor, before I proceed, the prosecution respectfully moves for the reading of the four Articles of Impeachment, and the entry of the corresponding answer or plea for each Article of Impeachment, Your Honor,” Luistro said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Schooled by defense panel? Luistro says it’s fake, won’t allow it

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“This is consistent with the Senate rules on impeachment, particularly Rule No. 7, Your Honor, the last paragraph of which mentions failure to appear, failure of the lawyer to appear, and failure to file an answer; there should be an entry of plea of not guilty,” she added.

Duterte’s lawyer, Sheila Sison, asked Luistro whether she is asking for an arraignment before countering that the vice president is present through her counsel, as the court allowed.

Sison noted that Duterte was able to file an answer to the Articles of Impeachment — although the prosecution previously deemed it a “non-answer” because it was supposedly a rehash of arguments that failed to address the accusations against her.

“I would like to ask her for the legal basis for requiring the respondent to be arraigned today.  Because your Honor, I note that in her request earlier and manifestations given for the respondent to be arraigned today, she cited Rule No. 7, Rule No. 9, and Rule No. 21.  However, in Rule No. 7, it very clearly states that if the person impeached after service shall fail to appear either in person or by counsel […] the trial shall proceed nevertheless,” Sison said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Well, this rule is clear; it does not talk about any arraignment, and if you take a look at this sentence, everything here has been satisfied: the respondent accused is here, has attended through counsel.  She may not be in person, but the notice given to the defense is that she may appear through counsel.  The second thing is that the respondent accused was also able to file her answer, and so Rule No. 7 does not support the request of the lead prosecutor,” she added.

Presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero then ruled in favor of the defense, echoing Sison’s argument.“The Articles of Impeachment were deemed read and spread into the records when it was referred by the Senate to the committee on justice for the proper issuance of summons, and a plea of not guilty will only be entered in accordance with our rules, in behalf of the Vice President, if she does not file an answer,” Escudero said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“But in this case she has filed an answer, and in fact has appeared through counsel.  Insofar as the readings of the Articles of Impeachment are concerned, it will be done at the final resolution of this case […] For those reasons, the motion is denied,” he added.

The Senate Impeachment Court convened on Monday to start the trial of Duterte, who was impeached by the House last May 11.  A total of 257 House lawmakers voted in favor of adopting House Resolution (HR) No. 989, which contains the Articles of Impeachment, while only 25 members voted against, and nine abstained.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The two complaints submitted to the House were consolidated into four grounds in the Articles of Impeachment:

culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust through the systematic liquidation, misuse, misappropriation, and irregular use of confidential funds amounting to P500 million under the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million under the Department of Education (DepEd)

culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust when Duterte amassed unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings during her incumbency as a public official

bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust when she gave monetary gifts or payments to DepEd officials to induce the violation and circumvention of procurement and other related laws

culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust by contracting for the assassination of the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House, by making grave threats, and by actively inciting sedition against the Republic./coa