The prosecution team in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has expressed its desire to call her to the witness stand.

While prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said her team will make the request for subpoena at the proper time, it did not stop the defense from immediately raising its opposition to the plan.

Lead defense lawyer Sheila Sison cites a provision of the Constitution — the same one invoked by the impeachment court in the trial of Renato Corona in 2012 that initially prevented him from taking the witness stand.

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

Article 3 Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution

Sison cited this constitutional clause in her manifestation, saying that this right of a witness is absolute.

“This is not only a simple right or a statutory right. This is a fundamental right. This is a right emanating from the Constitution itself,” she said.

Precedent

On the second day of the Corona trial in January 2012, the Senate impeachment court presided over by Juan Ponce Enrile junked the motion of the prosecution team to summon the chief justice, who enjoys the right against self-incrimination.

The prosecution had wanted Corona and his family to take the witness stand in connection with allegations of ill-gotten wealth.

It was not a unanimous decision: 14 senators voted to quash the motion, while six rejected it.

Interestingly, among those who voted no were senator-siblings Alan and Pia Cayetano — both senator-judges in the Duterte trial — and Manny Villar, whose children Mark and Camile are also current senator-judges.

Among those who voted yes to that motion in the Corona trial, six are incumbent senators today: Lito Lapid, Jinggoy Estrada, Tito Sotto, Kiko Pangilinan, Ping Lacson, and presiding officer Chiz Escudero.

At the Duterte trial, Escudero pointed out to the defense team that Corona still eventually testified in his own trial, but out of his own volition. He was the last witness of his own defense team.

“Although there may seem to be…a prohibition against opposing counsel calling the respondent, nothing prevents the respondent from deciding through her counsel to also appear, should she wish to
do so, basing it on Corona and what he did,” Escudero told Sison.

“We are aware of that, your Honor, but I think the Corona event is different,” Sison replied. “Because in that case, I think the decision to testify was voluntary.”

Prosecutors’ stand

The prosecution team’s declaration to summon Duterte at some point in the trial came shortly after it announced its decision to drop remaining witnesses in their article of impeachment on her alleged misuse of confidential funds.

The prosecution presented a total of 12 personalities for the confidential fund misuse case, including three hostile witnesses: former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta, OVP chief of staff Lemuel Ortonio, and former Department of Education chief of staff Michael Poa.

All three have claimed they don’t have personal knowledge as to how the secret funds were actually disbursed. This is because the OVP and DepEd SDOs had turned over the funds to Duterte’s security officers Raymund Lachica and Dennis Nolasco, in apparent violation of the government joint circular on confidential spending.

“The testimony elicited very clearly a pattern as one would see a chessboard. And the reason I make this metaphor is I am told that I cannot use the word sham nor mastermind, nor can I use the words illegal, improper, extravagant, immoral, unconscionable,” Kapunan said at the trial on Tuesday, September 8.

“All of these pawns and castles and horses and bishops point to only one person, and that accountable person is the Vice President,” she added.

Potential oral arguments

Escudero did not issue a ruling on Tuesday, saying the court will await the formal manifestation of the prosecution on the matter.

“You can make your formal comment. We can open it to oral arguments if necessary, before the chair makes a ruling,” Escudero told the defense.

“We do take note, Honorable Luistro, of the constitutional provision specifically Article 3, Section 17. I hope when you make your motion that you will argue insofar as its non-applicability,” he also told lead public prosecutor Jinky Luistro.

Luistro asserted that the prosecution’s plan to call the Vice President to the witness stand after presenting all their impeachment articles is aligned with the ideals of the Constitution.

“It is important that the impeachment court, including the viewing public, witness how the respondent Vice President answered to all these allegations because this is the spirit behind the provision of the Constitution on transparency and accountability,” Luistro said. – Rappler.com