VP trial starts: Chiz presides, sets rules
The Senate impeachment court on Monday elected Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero as its presiding officer over the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte despite strong objections from the Cayetano-led minority, before settling key procedural issues, including the 16-vote threshold for conviction and rules on the presentation of evidence.
The opening day of only the country’s third impeachment trial was marked by an hour-long constitutional debate over who should preside before senators voted 12-8 to elect Escudero under Senate Resolution No. 39, as amended.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian initially convened the impeachment court before raising the election of a presiding officer. Sen. Panfilo Lacson nominated Escudero, drawing opposition from the Cayetano siblings, Senators Alan Peter and Pia.
Alan Peter Cayetano, who was ousted as Senate President on June 3, argued that the Constitution contemplates the Senate President as presiding officer in impeachment trials except when the President is on trial, when the Chief Justice presides. Electing another presiding officer, he warned, could expose the proceedings to constitutional challenges.
“We need to protect the legitimacy of these proceedings,” he said, citing the 1986 Constitutional Commission records that, he argued, reflected the framers’ intent.
“I do not want this impeachment trial declared null and void. I do not want delays. I do not want walkouts. Why can we not simply follow the Constitution?” he said.
Pia likewise insisted that any amendments to impeachment rules should be undertaken by the impeachment court itself, adding that if senators believed the Senate needed to be in session to amend the rules, they should ask Malacañang to call a special session.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan countered that the Constitution requires only the Chief Justice to preside when the President is tried and does not mandate that the Senate President preside in cases involving the Vice President or other impeachable officials.
He maintained that the Senate had already exercised its constitutional rule-making authority when it adopted and later ratified amendments to the impeachment rules.
Gatchalian defended the arrangement, saying it would allow the impeachment court to devote full attention to the trial while enabling him, as Senate President, to continue supervising the chamber’s legislative agenda, including deliberations on the proposed 2027 national budget and other priority measures.
“As Senate President, I retain full supervision over the impeachment court and will stay closely engaged throughout, to ensure the proceedings are conducted fairly, in accordance with the Constitution, our Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, and the highest standards of due process,” Gatchalian said.
Despite the objections, the chamber proceeded with the vote and elected Escudero, who transferred to the presiding officer’s chair beside Gatchalian.
16-vote rule
Escudero pledged to conduct the proceedings with “prudence,” “unquestionable impartiality” and “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”
“I did not seek nor did I ask for this responsibility. But neither will I shirk from fulfilling this duty without fear or favor,” he added.
He then resolved one of the trial’s most consequential legal questions, ruling that conviction requires at least 16 affirmative votes.
“With 24 members of the Senate, a literal interpretation of the Constitution means that conviction requires the affirmative vote of at least 16 senator-judges,” Escudero said, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bayan v. Zamora, which held that two-thirds of the constitutionally mandated 24-member Senate means no fewer than 16 votes.
“This is the prevailing law today. Whether we agree with it or not, we must abide by it,” he said, adding that dissenting parties could seek relief before the Supreme Court.
The ruling came as three senators were absent from the opening day. Sen. Rodante Marcoleta had been arrested earlier on plunder charges, while Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada is detained on a plunder charge for which he is serving a 90-day suspension by the Sandiganbayan, while Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa’s whereabouts remain unknown while he is avoiding an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court.
Escudero also ruled that the burden of proof rests entirely with the House prosecution, which must establish its case by “clear and convincing evidence.”
Pretrial rulings
The court also resolved several pending pretrial issues.
It denied the prosecution’s request to open and mark as evidence a sealed box containing Duterte’s tax records from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), ruling that the impeachment court had no legal custody of the documents because they were not produced under a lawful court order.
Escudero ordered the sealed box returned to the BIR without prejudice to a future subpoena.
The court also resolved procedural issues governing the presentation of evidence and witnesses.
The court adopted a three-day disclosure period for newly identified prosecution witnesses and five days for defense witnesses not listed in pretrial briefs. It also reaffirmed the “one counsel, one witness” rule, allowing two lawyers to examine a witness only in exceptional circumstances.
‘Decide on evidence’
With procedural issues settled, both sides delivered opening statements.
Chief prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro urged senator-judges to disregard politics and decide the case solely on the evidence.
“The prosecution asks only this: Look at the evidence, listen to the witnesses, examine the records and follow the evidence wherever it leads,” Luistro said.
“Judge this case by the evidence, [for] years from now, future generations will not remember today’s political alliances,” she said. “What they will remember is when accountability was tested, the institutions of the Republic stood firm.”
She described the four articles of impeachment as “four chapters of the same story” involving abuse of power, betrayal of public trust and the absence of accountability.
“This trial matters not to persecute an individual, not to exact revenge on an opponent, and not to win in politics,” she said.
‘We never forget’
Luistro later disclosed that prosecutors had filed a fresh subpoena seeking Duterte’s income tax returns, those of her husband Manases Carpio, and records involving their companies after the court returned the sealed BIR documents.
The defense, meanwhile, portrayed the impeachment as an attempt to overturn the mandate of more than 32 million Filipinos who elected Duterte in 2022.
Lead counsel Sheila Sison invoked the antidictatorship refrain “never forget,” arguing that the proceedings should be judged against constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court rulings that voided an earlier impeachment attempt.
“The present undertaking of this court not only carries the weight of the Constitution but also the imprint of our nation’s history because the Filipino people have shown that they never forget. We, as a nation, never forget,” she said.
“The prosecution proposes that we unseat the Vice President elected to office by more than 32 million Filipino people, more than the number of votes cast for the sitting President and much greater than any of the votes secured by each of the members of the House of Representatives who now are here to prosecute her and seek to undo this people’s choice,” she said.
Sison accused the House of conducting what she described as a “mini trial” before the case reached the Senate and claimed investigators had engaged in a “fishing expedition” to build a narrative against Duterte.
She also argued that President Marcos had approved Duterte’s confidential funds through the Department of Budget and Management and maintained that findings of the Commission on Audit did not establish misuse of the funds.
She ended by stressing that the Vice President remained entitled to the full protection of her constitutional rights throughout the proceedings.
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
