What to expect on Day 10 of VP Duterte impeach trial, according to court spox — ANC

[0:00] Vice President Duterte's trial resumes tomorrow Wednesday and ANC will bring that to you live beginning at 9 in the morning following the impeachment court shift to an earlier schedule. [0:10] Joining us on the studio, the Senate impeachment court spokesperson, Attorney Reginald Dongol. [0:14] Attorney Reggie, thanks for joining us today. Welcome to the program. [0:18] Thank you, Carmina, and I'm so honored to be here with you. [0:21] The honor is all ours. [0:22] Okay, so 10 o'clock is the official start, but we're going to start our coverage beginning at 9. [0:27] How will this differ from the previous start of the trial, which was 2 p.m.? [0:34] 2 p.m. [0:35] Well, tomorrow will be the start of the earlier trial hours. [0:42] So it means that the secretariat has to prepare better the night before, and also the senator judges have to prepare better the night before, [0:51] because it will be a short morning for all of the participants. [0:55] So, however, based on scientific studies, morning is still the most productive time of the day, or the number of hours in the morning will be the most productive. [1:11] So the Senate president and presiding officer Escudero tried to also do the time and motion studies since the past two weeks, [1:21] and they have seen that the trial hours usually just stay around one to four hours. [1:28] So I think the morning schedule will be more productive for everyone. [1:35] But there's going to be a break. [1:37] It's not going to be a wall-to-wall trial with no breaks. [1:40] Kasi yung previews, magbe-break may be 5 minutes in Senate time. [1:45] So may mga 30 minutes, ganyan. [1:48] Pero ito, because lunch break falls in the middle of the whole schedule. [1:55] You're right, because before, it's 2 p.m. until Tosawa, to 6, to 5, without any break. [2:03] But this time, since it will fall within the lunch hour of everyone, so there will be a one hour, that's a general rule, one hour break. [2:14] But it depends on the agenda for the day or the witness that is going to be presented. [2:19] So it can be shorter to 30 minutes or even 40 to 45 minutes. [2:24] So it's not a hard and fast rule. [2:27] Was this also a change, a shift, to be able to reach more of the viewing public? [2:38] Ginawa niyo rin ho ba ito para mas makapanood ang mas nakararami in that particular hour? [2:43] Actually, it wasn't the factor that was considered by both the Senate President and the representing officer when they decided to move the schedule to the morning. [2:52] Ang pinaka-main factor, Carmina, is really the legislative agenda. [2:57] Kasi kung hapon tayo, medyo makakat short yung legislative agenda, the budget, the committee hearings. [3:04] So from, kumari, 8 o'clock sila magsastart, makakat ng mga around 12 noon or 1 p.m. to prepare naman for the trial, and then the trial will be until Tusawa. [3:15] So I think that both of them had to balance both their duties as an impeachment court and Senate as a legislative body that has to tackle all this legislative agenda and the budget for the next year. [3:30] So it's basically really just time management? [3:32] Yes. [3:32] All right. [3:33] The last time we talked, we talked about, you know, not just about what was happening inside the court, but what was happening outside as well. [3:41] Mas mukhang maingay yung nangyayari sa labas. [3:44] Over the weekend, there were talks about impartiality. [3:47] Is that even a pipe dream for the citizens who are watching it to even expect the senator judges to be impartial? [3:56] Considering that you have a senator judge who wants the prosecution to be one-sided or to not be one-sided. [4:04] And you have another one who paints the prosecution and the witness as inept, given that she's a senator judge. [4:13] I mean, is that even something that we should be hoping for, impartiality from the court? [4:19] I think Senator Laxon already guided me on how to talk about this matter, which is it shouldn't be my determination of whether there was a violation of any rule by any senator judge. [4:35] So it will be the body itself, the own senator judges, who will police their fellow senator judges. [4:41] As to tomorrow, maybe a senator judge will rise up or even a party will rise up to maybe bring that up to the court. [4:50] So the presiding officer or the whole Senate impeachment court can decide on the matter or can refer it to the proper venue, such as the ethics committee of the Senate. [5:01] So these things are very tricky because, as I said in several interviews, this is still a political process. [5:10] And the senator judges are really political animals in their own right because they have participated in this kind of discourse for several years. [5:20] But you're talking about an impeachment trial. [5:22] Yeah. [5:23] And they're the senator judges. [5:25] Correct. [5:26] And time and again, you know, it has been said that these senator judges will go by evidence. [5:31] Yes. [5:32] But then if you have these two characters behaving as such, I mean, what can the people expect from these senator judges? [5:38] Well, we have to look at the rules of the Senate impeachment court. [5:43] Under the rules, they have actually sworn to an oath that they will be impartial. [5:49] Whatever they state in the public might not be the actual verdict that they will have at the end of the day. [5:57] We have seen this in the previous impeachments, such as the Corona or the Estrada trial. [6:01] There has been talks that this certain senator will vote for or against. [6:07] Even the way that they clarified questions or even castigated counsels before. [6:14] However, we have seen that along the way, these kinds of acts by the senator judges are not really determinative of the final vote that they will have on the final question. [6:26] So I think we have to still be hopeful that our senator judges are wise enough to police themselves and police each other and also to know the boundaries that they should still maintain at least a semblance of impartiality within and outside of the courtroom. [6:47] So we just have to have faith in them. [6:50] You know, you know, Attorney Reggie, I've interviewed you many times already to to observe that when you say something, when you say maybe they'll do this or maybe it's up to them, it always happens. [7:03] So do should we expect or is it correct for us to expect that, you know, they are currently policing themselves, that they are currently reaching out to each other, reminding them of their sworn duty? [7:19] Yes, I think that that we can confirm because the senators have always constantly communicated with each other. [7:26] We are not seeing the full gamut of how they communicate during the live trials, but behind the scenes, of course, they have a certain courtesy and committee amongst each other. [7:37] So they also want to maintain the integrity of the court because at the end of the day, Carmina, it is the nation who will benefit from an impartial court. [7:46] So whatever decision that the court will have will be based on the individual senator judges and the parties themselves that all of us citizens have to come to live with in the next few years or so, whatever the effect of the decision of the court will be. [8:03] So it has to be an acceptable decision for us, the public, to accept whatever decision it will be. [8:12] We're going to touch on that in a bit. But first, you said a while ago that it's kind of tricky. It is, I guess, because we're only seeing them as senator judges in this impeachment court. [8:23] But at the end of the day, they are members of a collegial body, which is the Senate. [8:29] So kung anong nangyayari sa trial, nakikerry over bayan when the trial is over, but they adjourn for the day? [8:37] Or do you, I mean, you have the front seat. Can you tell us more about what happens, you know, behind the scenes? [8:43] Do they leave it all on the floor and then, you know, they go back to being a collegial body after it adjourns? [8:52] Well, I've just seen their interactions in the past three weeks that I have been sitting in during the trial. [9:00] And I see the camaraderie between the senators. They are very cordial amongst each other. [9:07] And also, when they break into caucuses or even their small meetings, group meetings, they are very open to each other's opinions. [9:17] So there are different kinds of people, like all of us. We have different styles, etc. [9:24] So it depends on the branding of each senator on how they will portray themselves when the camera is there. [9:32] So you see this difference in the characters or characteristics of each individual senator outside of the public sphere and within the public sphere. [9:45] So these senators are very already astute and already, they already know how to interact with the public and within each other. [10:00] So having said that, do we take that to mean as the presiding officer just leaving it up to the senator judges to police themselves? [10:08] Meaning, as we continue to watch it, we shouldn't expect the presiding officer to remind the senator judges of their sworn duty to be impartial. [10:19] Hindi namin yun maririnig from Senator Judge Escudero. [10:22] Well, if you look at the history of presiding officer Escudero in the past three weeks and even last year, he has a very liberal policy. [10:32] Like, for example, when he softly or gently reminded both parties of their spokesperson being counsels as well to be careful in the future. [10:46] It's just a soft reminder or suggestion for them to change the spokesperson because there might be a violation in the future. [10:54] So if he said that for the spokespersons, do we, spokesperson yun? [10:58] Ito, Senator Judge, pwede ba naming asahan na because meron siyang pagpapaalala sa mga spokesperson na magkakaroon din siya ng pagpapaalala sa mga senator judges? [11:10] Well, many of the things that the presiding officer has done, he tries not to really interfere until such time as he needs to. [11:21] So we might see some reminders maybe in the next few days just to maintain the integrity of the court and the credibility of the court with the public. [11:34] This is part of the arsenal that is allowed by him under the Senate impeachment rules. [11:40] So our presiding officer is strict but also liberal. [11:45] When the time comes that he needs to be strict, I think you've seen it when the objections have been happening on the floor. [11:52] And he can reel in the parties or the senator judges to already, okay, that's the boundary, stop it, I will not allow it anymore. [12:04] But of course he is always mindful that the public has the right to know whatever discussion on the floor. [12:12] So his policy is really not to go into caucuses. [12:17] So he wants the discussion to happen like with the oral arguments and the subpoena and then the debates and even with the senator judges asking or even arguing with the counsels. [12:29] So those things he wants to be transparent to everyone to judge both the respondent, the case itself by the prosecution and the court itself and the players in the court. [12:40] Good that you reminded me of that because remember they had a weekend before the decision on the subpoenas and the reason given to the public was that the documents were voluminous. [12:53] They had to peruse over these documents only for the presiding officer to read a decision right then and there. [13:02] I mean we were expecting that there were going to be debates between and among the senator judges. [13:07] That didn't happen. [13:09] So what was the whole weekend for? [13:11] Well, the oral arguments actually really influenced the resolution of presiding officer Escudero. [13:22] We didn't see a prepared or a predetermined resolution. [13:26] That's not the case. [13:28] However, in any judicial proceeding, the court staff, the Senate secretariat through the clerk of court of the Senate has already done its judicial diligence. [13:39] So it's part of judicial efficiency to already have the basic skeleton of the resolution. [13:47] But however, it depends on the oral arguments and the memorandum of the parties, the final resolution is still finalized the night before the presiding officer moves or actually resolves the matter. [14:03] Now, when it comes to the debates with the senators, the presiding officer has the power to rule on any motion by himself without throwing it to the body of the senator judges. [14:15] So he has the sole discretion to do that. [14:20] And of course, we have seen the heated debates, etc. [14:23] So to save the court time and also the resources of the public, so he just resolved on the matter, motu proprio, without throwing it for a vote with the body. [14:37] Because this has been a standing issue since the time that they have given their pretrial briefs. [14:48] The request for subpena was already there even when they filed the articles of impeachment. [14:53] There is the BIR box, as you all know. [14:56] So during the weekend, were there consultations made between and among the presiding officer and the senator judges? [15:03] Meron namang pagkakonsulta. [15:05] What I can confirm is actually during the caucus, when they discussed the matter, the presiding officer already laid down his skeletal decision or resolution. [15:20] And that is why the other senator judges asked for more time because of the fact that they have already as well a stand on the matter or maybe they haven't considered that point of view of the presiding officer before. [15:36] So they have to study and look back and research on the research of the presiding officer. [15:43] So that's what they need time for. [15:44] Okay. A while ago we mentioned the reminder to the spokespersons, right? [15:50] And I opened this conversation by saying that there's a lot that's happening on the floor. [15:55] There's a lot that's happening outside. [15:57] How does the impeachment court ensure that what the public gets and digests are actually what happened from or on the floor? [16:09] That that was the starting point. That's the origin story. [16:12] Because you know what's happening. [16:15] People are just getting bits and pieces of it and spreading it out according to their own agenda. [16:22] And this is on both sides. [16:25] And this is what the public, who don't have enough time to just sit down and watch the entire trial, that's where they get their info from. [16:35] So how do you ensure then that what they're getting is actually what happened on the floor? [16:41] You have to remember this is still a court. [16:43] While the court wants to try to control the narrative outside the courtroom, it really cannot police everyone. [16:55] The only people that the court can police are the participants. [16:58] Under Rule 18 of the Senate impeachment rules, the subjudicial rule is there. [17:05] So the presiding officer as the head of the court has to constantly remind people, the participants, that you can only talk up to this point, not discuss on the merits. [17:18] It's because we want the trial to be within the court and not in the public because nobody will win in the public sphere. [17:26] So the policy is to just actually apply the rules to everyone. [17:34] So that's what we have seen in the previous actions of the presiding officer. [17:39] He tries to softly remind everyone that, hey, your boundaries are, of course he is. [17:44] He is very much attuned to what is happening outside. [17:48] He monitors it as well. [17:49] And that's where he always gets his basis from when he tries to rule on an objection or remind the parties or even set the boundaries for everyone in the courtroom. [18:03] So, as you know this very well, the trial is happening or is functioning in the middle of a political divide. [18:10] Yes. [18:11] So that whatever the decision is, you know, how do you then ensure that it is going to be accepted? [18:18] I mean, yes, fidelity to the process. [18:20] Yes, fidelity to the Constitution. [18:23] But this happening in the middle of a political divide, how do you make sure that the decision is going to be accepted? [18:30] The only solution to that is to see the court as an impartial court and fair court, that everyone got their due. [18:40] The prosecution was able to establish the evidence. [18:44] The defense was able to destroy the case of the prosecution as given the opportunity to confront the witnesses. [18:53] So this is how the justice system works. [18:56] We really cannot, we cannot really prepare for everything that will happen in the future. [19:04] What we can, what the court can prepare is its functioning to be seen as credible and fair by the public. [19:12] And whatever decision that might be, it might be favorable to one party or not favorable to another, then the public will see that, hey, this court performed its function and duty, so we will respect. [19:26] So it's still the rule of law. [19:28] There's always, as I said, this is the tricky part of it, because there is always the rule of the mob. [19:33] But us lawyers have to always ensure that the rule of law must prevail at any single time in history. [19:41] All right. [19:41] Attorney Reginald Dongo there, the spokesperson of the impeachment court, joining us this noon. [19:45] Thanks again. [19:47] And that'll do it for today. [19:48] Thanks.