Luistro moves to drop articles in VP Sara impeachment trial — ANC

[0:00] later time. Now moving to the October 6 manifestation where you stated that you [0:05] were withdrawing your witness and rather recalling the issuance of subpoena in [0:11] favor against an official of the NBI and withdrawing Article 3 on bribery [0:20] prior to arresting your case which will as you know in accordance with the [0:26] rules will trigger the corresponding order by the court on the submission of [0:32] a formal offer, comment thereto and ruling of the court with respect to the [0:38] formal offer take into account the comments thereto by counsel for [0:41] respondent before the respondent begins the presentation of its evidence in [0:46] chief. So can we take that up Honorable Jokno? [0:48] Yes Your Honor may I yield the floor to our team leader of overall leader for the [0:54] prosecution panel chair Jinky Loistro. The floor is yielded to the fearless leader [1:00] of the Honorable Jokno the lead prosecutor Honorable Loistro is recognized. Yes ma'am. [1:07] Your Honor please please allow this representation to read this [1:12] manifestation. There is no written submitted manifestation correct me if I'm [1:18] wrong. We understand Your Honor. Yes Your Honor. Mr. presiding officer the Honorable [1:24] senator judges. Four articles of impeachment were filed against the [1:35] respondent vice president. Today the prosecution respectfully manifest that it [1:46] will no longer pursue three of them. It will stand on one and that is article two [1:59] on unexplained wealth. Let me explain in three parts. First our decision to focus on [2:15] what is necessary. During pre-trial the prosecution named numerous witnesses but did not present all [2:29] of them. On the article on threats we named 10 witnesses and presented only three. On the article [2:42] on confidential funds we named 27 and presented only 11. On the article on unexplained wealth we named 15 and [2:58] presented 11 not counting the individual bank and insurance witnesses. On the article on bribery we will present none of the five witnesses we had named. [3:06] On the article on bribery we will present none of the five witnesses we had named. In all some 32 witnesses will no longer be called to the witness stand. This reflects the prosecution's considered decision to focus its case only on the witness stand. [3:24] This reflects the prosecution's considered decision to focus its case only on the witnesses absolutely necessary for each article. Second, the proceedings that will no longer be necessary. The prosecution has not yet made its formal offer of documentary evidence. Had we proceeded on all four [3:31] articles. The impeachment court. The impeachment court would have had to consider the prosecution. The prosecution's considered decision to focus its case only on the witnesses absolutely necessary for each article. Second, the proceedings that will no longer be necessary. The prosecution has not yet made its formal offer of documentary evidence. [3:39] Had we proceeded on all four articles. The impeachment court. The impeachment court would have had to consider the evidence offered for each together with the corresponding objections and arguments. [3:50] By focusing on one article. The matters requiring the impeachment court's consideration are corresponding to the impeachment court's consideration. [4:29] correspondingly narrowed with practical benefits for the Senate, the respondent, and even the public. [4:38] Third, why one article is enough. The prosecution believes it has presented sufficient evidence for Article 2 to stand on its own. All in po tayo dito. We believe that evidence is substantial and compelling and warrants the respondent's removal from office. [5:09] For culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. Article 2. The article on unexplained wealth covers three matters. One, unexplained wealth. Two, violations of the SALIN. And three, prohibited business interest. We believe we have provided sufficient evidence on all these allegations. [5:48] In the prosecution's assessment, concentrating on this article is the most judicious course consistent with the evidence and our duty to the nation. [6:01] Therefore, honorable senator judges, beloved countrymen, the prosecution formally manifests its withdrawal of and intention to no longer pursue Article 1 on confidential funds, Article 3 on bribery, and Article 4 on threats. [6:32] We respectfully submit this manifestation to the Honorable Impeachment Court for its consideration and appropriate action. [6:42] We recall the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona. [6:49] In which the prosecution likewise withdrew certain articles and proceeded only on the remaining ones. [6:59] That president recognized the prosecution's privilege to determine which articles to pursue and which to drop. [7:10] This manifestation is made in that same spirit to exercise the prosecution's judgment on which charges to pursue as well as to safeguard the interest of the nation against betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. [7:35] Thank you, Mr. President. [7:37] Thank you, Mr. President. [7:38] Thank you, Mr. President. [7:39] Thank you, Honorable Senator Judges. [7:40] The chair notes the manifestation of the lead prosecutor, the Honorable Luis Stroh. [7:46] Comment from Attorney Sheila, the lead counsel for the respondent, rather. [7:52] Thank you, Your Honor. [7:53] You may proceed, Ma'am. [7:54] We thank the lead prosecutor for the calendar today. [7:58] In that it now has given formal notice that the prosecution after 38 days and expenditure of government resources presenting all these witnesses and so-called evidence. [8:18] And spending all our time coming to court is now formally withdrawing two of those articles for which they had presented evidence. [8:28] And we respect the decision of the prosecution. [8:32] However, whether this will affect how the defense plan to proceed with its presentation of evidence is something that we must make clear it will not. [8:46] Because the prosecution cannot make decisions for the respondent and the defense. [8:54] In other words, the prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested. [9:08] And the court has already heard the prosecution's alleged evidence and the interpretations it laid on them. [9:16] And the public has been already exposed to its allegations repeatedly through long interjections, interpellations, direct examinations, and the many conclusions and opinions that several of their witnesses have given before this Honorable Court. [9:35] And therefore, the accusations have already entered the consciousness of those who must ultimately render judgment. [9:47] In other words, the prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard while the respondent would be or would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted. [10:04] And we feel and we believe that this is not fairness and it is not in keeping with the guarantees of due process because the right to be heard is not merely satisfied by allowing the respondent some room to present evidence on her behalf. [10:25] It necessarily includes a meaningful opportunity to answer material accusations already publicly advanced against her. [10:36] Especially in this case where those allegations have been placed before the very tribunal that will decide this case and all for the entire country and member of this nation for their hearing pleasure. [10:54] And so we believe that even as we respect the prosecution's decision to withdraw the three articles or the two articles today in addition to Article 3 or the bribery article, the prosecution nonetheless cannot unilaterally determine how the defense will proceed or which accusations the judges may hear. [11:22] And which accusations the respondent may be permitted to answer. [11:27] It cannot make decisions for us and for the respondent because to allow this would be to confer upon the prosecution the extraordinary and impermissible power to control not only the presentation of its own case but also the scope and substance of the defense case. [11:52] Now if the withdrawal is intended to shorten the proceedings of this case or of the presentation of the respondent's evidence so that the court may immediately proceed to judgment then we believe that the resulting process would bear the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial. [12:17] A proceeding in which a proceeding in which the fundamental balance between accusation and defense has been so seriously compromised because again on record we have spent government resources, time, energy of this court and of all the participants in this trial presenting so-called evidence and hearing testimonial evidence from the witnesses that the prosecution had done. [12:49] The prosecution had chosen to present before this honorable court and yet the defense would now appear to be forced to limit its presentation or its rebuttal to those evidence to whatever it is that the prosecution had decided to retain in the articles of impeachment. [13:12] This we will never allow. [13:13] And while we recognize that indeed the prosecution has that prerogative to withdraw articles in the articles of impeachment that they had filed in fact we also recognize that the prosecution may in fact withdraw all articles of impeachment but of course they will not do that. [13:41] But that prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent. [13:51] The authority to streamline or to achieve speed in a trial is not the authority to diminish due process or to altogether disregard fundamental rules of fairness. [14:11] And the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly. [14:21] And just to set the records straight, the lead prosecutor also mentioned the Corona impeachment trial as a precedent for its decision to withdraw articles one and article four of the articles of impeachment. [14:40] But just so that just so it is clear before this honorable court as I'm sure this court can confirm and verify from the Senate records and so that [14:49] marinig din ng ating mga kababayan kung ano ba talagang nangyari sa Corona trial nung binidraw ng prosecution ng kanilang articles, the withdrawal of the five articles out of the eight articles in the Corona impeachment happened before the presentation of evidence, not after as in this case. [15:08] The court confirms as an initial reaction that indeed it is not solely the prosecutor's call or the prosecution's call to withdraw an article of impeachment, but neither is it the respondent's call to deny the same. [15:30] Once articles of impeachment are filed before the court or any court for that matter, any complaint filed before any court for that matter, it is already subject to and under the jurisdiction and disposition of the court, not by the party. [15:47] So we take this manifestation as a motion that will be adopted, that will be acted upon by the court, taking into account the manifestation which the court will take as an objection to the part of the respondent. [16:03] And hence, yes, do I take it as an objection, am I correct? [16:09] No, Your Honor. [16:10] Or a manifestation against it? [16:12] It's just a manifestation, Your Honor, just to set the record straight that however the defense or the respondent would want to proceed with its presentation is of our own decision. [16:29] And that, of course, if that's the call of the prosecution to withdraw certain articles from the articles of impeachment, that is their look out and that is their prerogative. [16:41] Now, whatever will be the consequence of that decision will be or would be for them to bear alone and not for the respondent. [16:50] So it's not an objection to the withdrawal of those articles. [16:55] I'm just making a manifestation on behalf of the defense and the respondent that we will proceed as we deem fit, Your Honor. [17:02] Even if it's not an objection, it's still subject to the court's decision and discretion as to how to act on the motion of the prosecution. [17:12] For this reason, the chair calls a brief recess to consult the senator judges. [17:19] Brief recess is called... [17:20] Magandang hapon, Carmina Constantino po at kayo po'y nanunood pa rin ng the Vice President on trial day 39. [17:51] Ang pinakahuling balita galing dyan sa impeachment court, sinabi na ng prosecution na kanilang bibitawan ang tatlo sa apat na articles of impeachment. [18:04] At sila'y tutuun na lamang o pagtutuun na lamang nilang pansin ang Article 2, which is the article on unexplained wealth. [18:14] Kasama pa rin natin ang ating resident legal analyst, CUP College of Law Assistant Professor Michael Tu Jr. [18:21] Para himay-himayin kung ano nga bang ibig sabihin ito at ano ang magiging impact nito sa mga darating na araw at sa kaso mismo na inilalaban ni Vice President Sara Duterte. [18:38] Professor Tu, magandang hapon po. [18:40] Yes, Carmina. [18:41] Alright, so we came into this trial, Professor Tu, expecting that the article on bribery will be dropped. [18:49] Pero ang narinig po natin kay Congressman Jinky Luistro ay tatlo dun sa apat na artikulo ay siya nilang bibitawan. [18:56] Ito yung articles on aggrave threats, bribery at kahit yung confidential funds na kung saan naman nagsimula lahat ng ito. [19:06] Ang sabi nila, hindi na daw nila yung pagtutuunan ng pansin bagkos ang pagtutuunan nilang pansin ay itong Article 2, which is on unexplained wealth. [19:18] Una-una, your thoughts on the prosecution dropping these three articles, Professor? [19:24] Right, so it is the prosecution's prerogative, parang nag-uurong ng habla, although in this case may natirang isa. [19:33] So it would be curious how the impeachment court will deal with that kasi hindi naman nililitis ang isang bagay na hindi na pinupursu or hindi na hinahabla. [19:47] But there is a question of fairness na nirais nga ng depensa. [19:52] My top of head comment on that is it's an unfortunate development for the defense but it is what it is. [20:01] Kasi nasa prerogative ba talaga ng prosecution yan? [20:05] Although, and I think also,