Impeach court allows ex-Sandiganbayan justice Tang to testify on SALN

MANILA, Philippines – The Senate impeachment court ruled against Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense counsel’s request on Monday opposing the presentation of the House prosecutors’ first witness on impeachment article II, or Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth.

The House sought to present retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to testify to governing principles on undisclosed and unexplained wealth, and prohibited business interests.

READ: VP Trial Day 24: Court to tackle alleged unexplained wealth

Article continues after this advertisement

“There is no need for the court to declare this witness if she’s an expert or not. This is subject to cross; it is subject to the qualification of Hon. Diokno. So the court will allow it. The comment of counsel of the respondent is duly noted. If you want counsel, you can make your continuing objection on record,” impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero ruled.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Prior to the ruling, Defense counsel Mark Vinluan made a motion to exclude Cabotaje-Tang as a witness for the impeachment article.

“Justice Tang’s presentation is likewise improper. She is not testifying as an amici curiae… With all due respect to her, the court never intervened or approved her testimony on her expertise or field of specialization… She is not a friend of a court,”  Vinluan explained.

He continued:  “By asking for her interpretations on legal principles, she is poised to make conclusions of law that only this honorable impeachment court is allowed to make… We will move for the exclusion of the testimony of Justice Tang.”

But during the offer of testimony, public prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno asserted that laws on public accountability are complex, and their intricacies are important to establish for the understanding of the public and the court.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Para sa amin po sa prosecution, under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, ang aming tungkulin is not to secure a conviction; it is to see that justice is done. Justice cannot be done if the law is obscure,” Diokno pressed.

(For us in the prosecution, under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, our duty is not to secure a conviction; it is to see that justice is done. Justice cannot be done if the law is obscure.)

Article continues after this advertisement

“Kung hindi malinaw sa judge kung ano ang ipinagbabawal ng batas, paano magiging makatarungan ang kaniyang paghuhusga? Kung hindi malinaw sa sambayanang Pilipino kung ano ang pinagbabawal sa batas, paano nila malalaman kung dapat mapapanagot ang respondent sa kasong ito,” he added.

(If it is not clear to the judge what the law prohibits, how can his judgment be fair? If it is not clear to the Filipino people what the law prohibits, how can they know whether the respondent should be held liable in this case.)