Sison, bumuwelta matapos i-drop ng Prosecution ang 3 Articles of Impeachment — GMA News

[0:00] The Chair notes the manifestation of the Lead Prosecutor, the Honorable Louise Straw. [0:05] Comment from Attorney Sheila, the Lead Counsel for the Respondent. [0:11] Thank you, Your Honor. [0:13] You may proceed, Ma'am. [0:14] We thank the Lead Prosecutor for the calendar today, in that it now has given formal notice [0:21] that the prosecution, after 38 days and expenditure of government resources, [0:29] presenting all these witnesses and so-called evidence, and spending all our time coming [0:39] to court, is now formally withdrawing two of those articles for which they had presented evidence. [0:47] And we respect the decision of the prosecution. However, whether this will affect how the defense [0:56] planned to proceed with its presentation of evidence is something that we must make clear. [1:04] It will not, because the prosecution cannot make decisions for the respondent and the defense. [1:13] In other words, the prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations [1:21] without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested. And the court has already [1:28] heard the prosecution's alleged evidence and the interpretations it laid on them. And the public [1:36] has been already exposed to its allegations repeatedly, through long interjections, interpellations, [1:45] direct examinations, and the many conclusions and opinions that several of their witnesses have [1:52] given before this honorable court. And therefore, the accusations have already entered the consciousness [2:00] of those of those who must ultimately render judgment. In other words, the prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard, [2:11] while the respondent would be or would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted. [2:21] 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 [2:37] by allowing the respondent some room to present evidence on her behalf. It necessarily includes a meaningful opportunity to answer material accusations already publicly advanced against her. [2:54] 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. [3:12] 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, [3:31] the prosecution nonetheless cannot unilaterally determine how the defense will proceed or which accusations the judges may hear, [3:41] and which accusations the respondent may be permitted to answer. It cannot make decisions for us and for the respondent. [3:51] 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, [4:06] but also the scope and substance of the defense case. [4:12] Now, if the withdrawal is intended to shorten the proceedings of this case, or of the presentation of the respondent's evidence, [4:22] so that the court may immediately proceed to judgment, then we believe that the resulting process would bear the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial. [4:36] This trial, a proceeding in which the fundamental balance between accusation and defense has been so seriously compromised because, again, on record, [4:48] 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 [5:04] from the witnesses that the prosecution had chosen to present before this honorable court. [5:11] 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. [5:31] This, we will never allow. [5:32] And while we recognize that, indeed, the prosecution has that prerogative to withdraw articles in the articles of impeachment that they had filed, [5:49] in fact, we also recognize that the prosecution may, in fact, withdraw all articles of impeachment, but, of course, they would not do that. [6:00] But that prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent. [6:13] 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. [6:28] And the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly. [6:40] And just to set the record 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. [6:57] But just so it is clear before this honorable court, as I'm sure this court can confirm and verify from the Senate records. [7:06] And so that we also have to hear from our members what happened in the corona trial when we withdraw the prosecution of the article, [7:17] 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. [7:29] 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, [7:47] but neither is it the respondent's call to deny the same. [7:51] Once articles of impeachment are filed before the court, or any complaint filed before any court for that matter, [7:59] it is already subject to and under the jurisdiction and disposition of the court, not by the party. [8:06] So we take this manifestation as a motion that will be adopted, that will be acted upon by the court, [8:14] taking into account the manifestation which the court will take as an objection to the part of the respondent. [8:21] And hence, yes, Dr. Sheila, do I take it as an objection, am I correct? [8:27] No, Your Honor. [8:28] Or a manifestation against it? [8:30] It's just a manifestation, Your Honor, just to set the record straight, [8:35] that however the defense or the respondent would want to proceed with its presentation is of our own decision. [8:47] And that, of course, if that's the call of the prosecution to withdraw certain articles from the articles of impeachment, [8:56] that is their look out and that is their prerogative. [8:59] Now, whatever will be the consequence of that decision will be or would be for them to bear alone and not for the respondent. [9:08] So it's not an objection to the withdrawal of those articles. [9:13] I'm just making a manifestation on behalf of the defense and the respondent that we will proceed as we deem fit, Your Honor. [9:20] Even if it's not an objection, it's still subject to the court's decision on discretion as to how to act on the motion of the prosecution. [9:30] For this reason, the chair calls a brief recess to consult the senator judges. [9:36] Brief recess is called. [9:38] Brief recess is called. [9:39] Brief recess is called.