Prosecution, defense clash over use of ‘accused’ in impeachment trial

MANILA, Philippines — Even before the awaited debates on the conviction threshold, the opposing parties in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Wednesday got heated over the use of the word “accused” in referring to Duterte during the proceedings.

The argument began after House prosecutor Chel Diokno sought clarification from the Senate impeachment court on how to correctly refer to Duterte after noting that the defense previously referred to her as the “accused,” instead of “respondent.”

READ: Defense, prosecution to present oral arguments on voting threshold

Article continues after this advertisement

“And we all know this is not a criminal proceeding, this is a sui generis proceeding, and of course we do not want to condition the mind of anyone that this case is criminal in nature,” said Diokno.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Escudero then responded that just like previous rulings of previous impeachment courts, the respondent is simply referred to as “the respondent.”

“That’s why the chair also refers to the opposing side as counsel for respondents,” said Escudero referring to the defense.

With this, Diokno moved to strike the word “accused” off the court’s records or official transcript.

However, Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison denied referring to their client simply as “accused,” saying that they actually referred to the vice president as “respondent-accused.”

Article continues after this advertisement

“If the prosecution wishes to clarify why the defense refers to the vice president as ‘respondent-accused,’ even though the prosecution feels that this is not a criminal action per se, the articles of impeachment will show that the charges are criminal in nature,” she said.

Diokno then maintained that he recalls hearing only “accused,” and reiterated his motion to have it stricken out.

Article continues after this advertisement

He then argued against Sison’s explanation, claiming that the impeachment trial is not a criminal case “by any stretch” as there is no criminal liability involved in the case and instead only revolves around Duterte’s fitness to continue in office.

“Therefore it would be improper and it may even lead to misconceptions if the respondent’s counsel were to refer to the vice president as the accused,” he added.

Sison then asserted that if possible misconception is the issue, then there would be “no greater danger than a misconception in the idea that the constitutional presumption of innocence” does not apply to the impeachment case.

Diokno, for his part, acknowledged that while the Bill of Rights apply to all types of proceedings, the presumption of innocence—in the context of proof beyond reasonable doubt—only applies to criminal proceedings.

But Sison further disputed this by maintaining that the presumption of innocence is “not debatable” and arguing otherwise would be “dangerous to convey to the public and scholars of the law.”

Escudero then ruled in favor of the defense, citing the court’s transcripts which showed the defense did, in fact, refer to Duterte as “respondent-accused.”

He also cited a 1922 case, “In re Impeachment of Horrilleno,” which referred to impeachment processes as “criminal in nature.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“Chair therefore rules against the motion of honorable Diokno, member of the panel of prosecutors, and will not delete the referral of the counsel for the respondent to the respondent as ‘respondent-accused’,” said Escudero. /jpv