Sara Duterte trial: Prosecution gets more viable conviction path after threshold ruling
MANILA, Philippines – The impeachment court ruling that barred absentee senators from voting in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte effectively gives the prosecution a more feasible path to securing her conviction.
But there are no premature celebrations for the prosecution, which believes the challenge remains the same.
“The prosecution’s job is to build a house of evidence. In a way, the defense’s job is actually easier because they only want to tear down the house,” prosecutor Chel Diokno said in a press conference after Wednesday’s trial, September 23. “It never gets easier.”
“We don’t view it in terms of whether the job has become harder or not. What’s more important for us at this point is to properly lay out the evidence and continue the proceedings until the end,” prosecutor Terry Ridon added.
The new decision overturns presiding officer Chiz Escudero’s July 6 ruling, which had kept the conviction threshold at 16 votes.
Under the latest ruling, the impeachment court won’t count in the voting total those who are detained, suspended, legally restrained from voting, have unknown whereabouts, and/or are suffering from physical and medical incapacity.
The descriptions fit at least four senators: jailed plunder defendants Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, fugitive Bato dela Rosa, and Loren Legarda who has been on medical leave.
This could bring down the new denominator from 24 to 20. Two-thirds of that, which is the constitutional conviction threshold, is equivalent to 14.
But the prosecution pointed out that a reduced voting denominator also benefits the defense, because it will also lower the acquittal threshold.
“It’s a two-way consequence for both the defense and the prosecution,” Luistro said.
Diokno, who represented the prosecution during the oral arguments, insisted that absentee senators should not be able to vote because it will be tantamount to an acquittal by default.
“Their inability to participate is beyond dispute. And yet, if the denominator is fixed at twenty-four, conviction would always require sixteen votes. This is absurd,” Diokno told the court on Wednesday morning. – Rappler.com
