Diokno: Prosecution believes in case vs Duterte regardless of vote count

MANILA, Philippines — Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno has clarified that the prosecution panel believes in the evidence it has presented and will present for Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, whether or not the Senate Impeachment Court lowers the number of votes needed for a conviction.

In his speech on Wednesday, during oral arguments on how many votes are needed to convict an impeached official when several members are absent, Diokno said he and the other members of the prosecution panel are confident in the case they have presented before the impeachment court.

“The prosecution is confident in its case. We believe in our evidence, and we trust the independent judgment of this honorable court. And whatever the threshold is, however this court decides this issue before it today, the prosecution will do its job,” Diokno said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Luistro sees lower conviction vote if Senate numbers fall 

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“Malinaw ang obligasyon ng prosekusyon. Ilatag ang ebidensya, at patunayan ang mga paratang para makamit ang hustisya at pananagutan. Malinaw rin ang tungkulin ng hukumang ito: suriin ang ebidensya, timbangin ang mga argumento at magpasya ayon sa Konstitusyon at sa ating batas. Those responsibilities we respectfully submit belong together,” he added.

(The obligation of the prosecution is clear: lay down the evidence, and prove the allegations so that justice and accountability can be attained.  This court’s duty is clear: examine the evidence, weigh the arguments, and decide in accordance with the Constitution and the law.  Those responsibilities we respectfully submit belong together.)

According to Diokno, the decision on whether there is a need to bring down the number of votes needed to convict Duterte in the absence of several senator-judges rests with the Senate, noting that their role is to present the evidence.

READ: Diokno: If senator-judges are absent, will vacant seats decide case? 

Article continues after this advertisement

“The House prosecution panel also stands under the principle of accountability. Our responsibility is not to find the most favorable arithmetic. Our responsibility is to prove the articles of impeachment within the bounds of justice. Our responsibility in the prosecution does not change whether this court determines that the applicable numerical requirement is 16 or some other number,” he said.

“If the court determines 16, we present our evidence.  If the court determines another number, we present the same evidence.  Because the evidence does not become stronger or weaker depending upon the denominator.  The articles do not change; the burden imposed upon the prosecution does not change,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

Under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution, the Senate is given the “sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”  Also, the same provision states that an impeached official will only be convicted upon the “concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”

READ: 3 of 4 ex-SC justices agree conviction threshold not fixed at 16 

Ordinarily, two-thirds of 24 members of the Senate is 16, but the absence of several senator-judges has raised questions from different sides.  Some individuals supportive of the Vice President have insisted that all members of the Senate refer to even senators who are beyond the chamber’s coercive powers, since their titles as Senators were not removed.

However, others have asked how judges can make a sound decision if they have not observed the proceedings and have failed to study documents and witnesses’ testimonies.

As of now, four senators have missed a huge chunk of the trial: Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Rodante Marcoleta, and Ronald dela Rosa have not attended a single trial day, while Senator Loren Legarda left the country in early August.

For the prosecution, presenting evidence regardless of the final number of votes needed to convict Duterte has been a long-time stance.

While lead public prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said that the vote threshold for convicting Duterte should be reduced if more senators become unable to participate in the trial, counsel for the prosecution Benjamin Tolosa clarified that their goal is to build a case with overwhelming evidence that can convict Duterte regardless of developments.

But on Wednesday, Diokno asked whether it will be the vacant seats of absent senator-judges who will decide on Duterte’s impeachment case should the threshold needed for a conviction remain.

Diokno, in the same speech, stressed that senator-judges are required by the 1987 Constitution to take an oath because they are exercising an “extraordinary constitutional function” that is separate from their legislative functions.

But if senators who have not taken the oath as senator-judges are allowed to participate in the voting process, then Diokno asked whether the court will leave it to empty chairs and cold tables to view the evidence and examine witnesses.

According to Diokno, the Supreme Court ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco would show that 24 senators will not always be the denominator.

Diokno explained that it is absurd to require 16 votes as the minimum for a conviction when it was clearly established that absent senator-judges cannot hear the evidence and deliberate on the matter.

The prosecution’s stand aligns with the views of three of the four former Supreme Court (SC) justices appointed as the impeachment court’s amici curiae, who said the required number of votes to convict will not always be 16.

During the discussions, former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.’s position paper was read by Senate Secretary Renato Bantug, which stated that “all members” should not automatically mean all 24 senators.

Davide, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said that the framers of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions could not have intended the term to include senators who had resigned or been expelled, those who are physically or mentally incapacitated, those who cannot participate because they are abroad or their whereabouts are unknown, and those legally restrained from exercising their duties as senators.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Two former Chief Justices, Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno, echoed Davide’s position.  Panganiban, in his speech, said that while mathematics will always be about exact computations — like how one-third of 24 senator-judges will always be 16 — realities must also be considered in navigating proposals to lower the number of votes needed for a conviction. /mr