Chua: VP team’s objections ‘pang-socmed,’ reconsideration not sought

MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutor, Manila Rep. Joel Chua questioned the sincerity of Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team’s complaints over the withdrawal of the articles on confidential funds, bribery, and grave threats, saying that while the issue of reconsideration was raised during the proceedings, the defense did not ask the court to treat its manifestation as a motion for reconsideration.

The Vice President’s legal team appears to be airing objections for public consumption only rather than formally seeking reconsideration of the Senate impeachment court’s ruling that allowed the withdrawal of three impeachment articles against her, Chua said.

“Di ba? Kaya sabi ko nga, ’yung kanilang mga reklamo doon, eh parang ano lang, pang-socmed,” Chua stressed.

Article continues after this advertisement

Speaking during an interview with dzRH broadcasters Anthony “Ka Tunying” Taberna and Gerry Baja, Chua recalled the exchanges during the Oct. 13 hearing when the prosecution formally withdrew Articles I, III and IV, leaving Article II on alleged unexplained wealth as the remaining charge against Duterte.

READ: From 4 to 1: Impeachment court OKs reduced raps vs Sara Duterte

The defense, led by lawyer Sheila Sison, maintained that the prosecution’s decision should not limit Duterte’s ability to present evidence or answer allegations already aired before the senator-judges. However, Sison clarified that the defense was not objecting to the withdrawal itself.

“Alam mo, kung pakikinggan ninyo ’yung committee hearing, ay ’yung impeachment hearing noong araw na iyan, actually tinanong iyan ni Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero,” Chua recalled.

READ: Prosecutors file formal offer of evidence in Sara Duterte trial

Article continues after this advertisement

“Tinanong niya kung ang mga manifestation ni defense lawyer, Sheila, ay motion for reconsideration. At sinabi naman nila na hindi,” Chua pointed out.

Escudero subsequently clarified that the ruling accepting the withdrawal could still be challenged through the proper procedures, including a motion for reconsideration raised by a senator-judge.

Article continues after this advertisement

The impeachment court also limited the defense’s presentation of evidence to Article II and lifted the sub judice restrictions on the withdrawn articles, allowing the parties to publicly address the allegations, subject to the court’s rules on the disclosure of evidence.

“Alam po ninyo, pare-parehas naman po kaming abogado, di ba? Siyempre, unang-una, hindi mo na kailangang patunayan ano pang ano pa ’yung iyong patutunayan doon, eh hindi na itatalakayin,” Chua explained.

Chua argued that the prosecution’s decision narrowed the issues that Duterte’s defense would have to address in the ongoing trial, making its continued complaints difficult for him to reconcile with its stated position on defending the Vice President.

The withdrawal of the three articles, however, does not amount to a finding that the underlying allegations were false. The impeachment court’s action means those articles will no longer be adjudicated in the present trial, subject to the terms of its ruling.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“Siyempre, kasi kami pinag-aralan namin, apat, isa lang naman ang kailangan namin na conviction para ma-convict,” Chua reminded. /cb