Losing on Day 1? Holding impeachment trial is already a huge victory – Luistro

MANILA, Philippines — Despite what people may think, lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro believes they scored a win on the first day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, as seeing the proceedings roll is already a victory.

Luistro, in a press briefing, was asked about what she thought of the first day of trial, given that some of the motions raised by the prosecution panel did not go in their favor.

In response, she said the people won because they have waited for so long for Duterte’s trial, and now, it is finally being held.

Article continues after this advertisement

“We are victorious. The prosecution won. The people won. Our countrymen did because we have waited for this impeachment trial for so long, and it is happening right now,” Luistro said.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“That alone, we claim victory for what happened today,” she added.

According to Luistro, the fact that trial is now moving forward, to allow accountability mechanisms to take place, is a win for them and the people.

“So finally, the impeachment trial has started, we would like to express our commendation, of course, to the impeachment court for responding to the mandate of the Constitution,” she said.

“This is a win for the Filipino people because the accountability mechanism is happening. The Constitution is being followed,” she pointed out.

Article continues after this advertisement

“We did not lose. As a matter of fact, we are very happy because […] the impeachment trial is happening now. That is the most important part of what happened today,” Luistro observed.

“We were able to witness that the Constitutional mandate is being implemented. And we claim that as a victory for the prosecution because the trial is happening already,” she repeated.

Article continues after this advertisement

Assumptions that the prosecution lost on Day 1 came after the first clash between the House of Representatives members and Duterte’s lawyers took place.

Before delivering her opening statement, Luistro moved that Duterte be arraigned based on several Senate rules on impeachment, including Rule No. 7 which allows an arraignment when a respondent fails to appear or submit an answer.

But Duterte’s lawyer Sheila Sison asked whether Luistro is already asking for an arraignment, before countering this argument by saying that Duterte is present through her counsel, as the court allowed it.

READ: Senate impeachment court denies Luistro’s bid to arraign Duterte

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

Eventually, the Senate Impeachment Court thumbed down Luistro’s motion to read the Articles of Impeachment and hold an arraignment.

“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,” Presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis 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 is concerned, it will be done at the final resolution of this case […],” the senator said.

“For those reasons, the motion is denied,” he concluded.

Too early

Luistro’s fellow public prosecutor, Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno, said that it is still too early to claim that one side won, adding that the discussions focused on preliminary matters.

“It’s too early to say who won and who lost. This is only the first day of the trial, and the things we talked about are preliminary matters only,” Diokno explained.

“The important thing is our call to examine the evidence that would be laid down in the coming days and weeks. Judging the impeachment is not in these incidents, but in how we prove the allegations raised in the Articles of Impeachment,” he noted.

For a brief moment, Diokno also squared off against Sison, who asked him during trial if the prosecution is ready to present witnesses.

Diokno then 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.

Escudero then instructed both panels to move forward.

During a press briefing after the first day of the trial, Diokno said he is perplexed why Sison asked him if they are ready to present witnesses, when the subpoena has not been issued by the Senate Impeachment Court.

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

Earlier, the Senate Impeachment Court convened 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.

READ: Impeached anew: House OKs articles vs Sara Duterte again with 257 votes

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 /apl