Diokno: Why is defense asking us to present witness without subpoena?

MANILA, Philippines — Public prosecution panel member and Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno said he is perplexed about the reason Vice President Sara Duterte’s lawyer asked him if they are ready to present witnesses when the subpoena has not been issued by the Senate Impeachment Court.

In a press briefing after the first day of the impeachment trial, Diokno was asked about his interaction with defense panel member Sheila Sison, who asked him during trial if the prosecution is ready to present witnesses.

“I don’t know, because his question was whether we were ready to present witnesses today. The issue was that subpoenas had not yet been issued for the witnesses who are scheduled to testify tomorrow,” Diokno said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: WATCH: Impeachment court spokesperson holds presser

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“So, for me, it was not the kind of question that required an answer because the answer was already obvious,” he added.

Sison’s question came after Diokno explained before the court the order that the prosecution will present the Articles of Impeachment.  However, the court has not yet tackled the subpoenas for the prosecution’s witnesses during that time.

“The first article we will be presenting will be Article IV on grave threats; second will be confidential funds, Article I; third, bribery, that is Article III; and the fourth is unexplained wealth, your Honors that is […] Article II,” Diokno said.

READ: Highlights: Day 1 of Sara Duterte impeachment trial

Article continues after this advertisement

“Again, chair rules that the respondents have the same and equal privilege of presenting its case as it so desires when it’s time to present its evidence-in-chief, shall come,” presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero said.

“Thank you, your Honor.  May I ask if the prosecution is ready to present its first witness today, because the defense is ready today, your Honor,” Sison replied.

Article continues after this advertisement

Diokno also pointed out that Sison has repeatedly violated courtroom decorum which states that litigators, or lawyers from both sides, must address questions to the court and not their counterparts.

Sison, however, maintained that the question was made to the court, and not to Diokno.

“If your Honor please, I just noticed that your Honor had already directed the counsel for the defense not to propound questions to the prosecution.  This is already the second time that she’s doing that, she appears to be assuming or arrogating the powers of the court, because as I understand the rules, it’s only the court that can propound questions to the counsels,” Diokno said.

“I take exception to that manifestation of the good counsel, in fact the record would show and if we could run the transcript back, my question was addressed to the presiding officer, your Honor,” Sison replied.

Escudero then instructed both panels to move forward.

In the press briefing, Diokno explained that Escudero had already reminded Sison about courtroom decorum, but she still talked to the prosecution panel — prompting him to make that point.

“Well, for us to put things into context, it is basic in courtroom decorum for lawyers to refrain from asking or examining the opposing lawyers.  If there are questions that they have to raise, they have to direct it to the Senator-judges,” Diokno said.

“And if the court wants to know anything from the lawyers, the court is the one who should ask questions, if they think that it is relevant.  That’s why I spoke earlier, because I have observed that the presiding officer, Senator Escudero, has already reminded her not to ask the opponents, and yet I felt that it was being repeated by the defense counsel,” he added.

Earlier, 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 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 /mr