Senate impeachment court denies Luistro's motion to arraign VP Sara

MANILA, Philippines — The defense scored an early victory on the opening day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial after the Senate impeachment court rejected the prosecution’s request to formally read the charges and arraign her.

As the trial began on Monday, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, the lead public prosecutor, argued that Vice President Duterte should be arraigned under Rule No. 7 of the Senate impeachment rules, which addresses situations where a defendant fails to show up or respond to the charges.

“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.

READ: LIVE: VP Sara Duterte impeachment trial Day 1

“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.

Sara Duterte able to file an answer

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.

READ: ‘Power belongs to the people’ – Luistro as Sara Duterte impeachment trial begins

“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.

“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.

READ: Sara Duterte impeachment trial: Chiz elected presiding officer

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.

“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.

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

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.

Read Next

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.