Disrespect of the impeachment court

Dull and boring.

That best describes the first day of the presentation of the evidence of Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial.

For starters, engineer Jaime Adalin, the Davao City assessor, testified on the properties owned individually or jointly by the VP and her husband Manases Carpio, which was primarily based on official records.

The same testimony could have been presented in less time and effort if it were made instead in the form of a judicial affidavit, which is the norm in trial courts to expedite the proceedings, but that procedure (for unexplained reasons) was not adopted by the impeachment court.

What caught the attention most of some of the senator-judges was the disclosure of the all-expenses-paid trips Adalin made to China early this year, together with other city officials.

Although there was nothing illegal about those trips, he was evasive in his answers to questions about them and had the gall to describe the initial question about it as “irrelevant,” ahead of the intervention of the defense lawyers.

As Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson put it, Adalin smirked, laughed, and almost made a mockery of the impeachment trial. That conduct drew a strong warning from some senator-judges about his being cited for contempt and filing of perjury charges.

That was the first time in the 41 days of the impeachment trial that a witness, a government official at that, tried to run rings around the senator-judges and made them feel that their lofty status in government was not something to be conscious of or wary about in his official interaction with them.

Adalin’s brusque demeanor brought to mind the way the VP and former President Rodrigo Duterte contemptuously talked and acted when they attended, some years back, hearings in the House of Representatives on the VP’s budget and extrajudicial killings during the past administration, respectively.

If ordinary mortals had done the same, they would have been quickly cited for contempt and ordered detained until they apologize for their disrespectful acts.

Apparently, the earlier admonition from the senator-judges about the proper decorum of witnesses fell on deaf ears.

On the same day, the next witness, Davao City accountant Vingelin Bajan, was similarly evasive in her answers and claimed lack of memory about many of the things she was asked in connection with her official functions.

Since Adalin and Bajan are employees of Davao City, the Dutertes’ political bailiwick, it is reasonable to assume they had been briefed ahead of time by the VP’s lawyers on what to testify on and how to answer possible questions on cross-examination by the prosecution and the senator-judges.

No lawyer worth his or her salt would allow his or her witnesses to take the witness stand unless they have been “rehearsed” or given pointers on how to parry damaging questions.

Undoubtedly, the VP’s lawyers, whose media releases say they are experienced trial lawyers, would not have been remiss in that important aspect of witness preparation.

So it defies the imagination to think that the behavior of the two witnesses was spontaneous or an on-the-spot reaction to probing questions.

Recall that during the cross-examination, Bajan was admonished by the presiding officer, Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, when she was caught looking at the defense lawyers while figuring how to answer a question by the prosecution. She probably was waiting for cues on what to say.

The evasive answers and cavalier way they responded to the questions appear to have been preplanned or were part of the strategy to minimize the adverse effects, if any, of the evidence earlier presented by the prosecution on the subject properties.

And yet, Bajan’s contemptuous acts were allowed to pass by Escudero as if they were trivial and did not merit the exercise of the coercive power of the impeachment court on witnesses who treat the proceedings as something they can play around with.

Adalin’s actions may be treated with leniency because it was the first time that a witness had the nerve to treat the impeachment trial that way.

But after having called the attention of witnesses to be truthful in their testimony under pain of contempt or perjury charges, there was no room for liberality when Bajan took the witness stand.

She had been warned, but she ignored the warning, then some senator-judges complained about the disrespect, but the presiding officer just let it pass with impunity.

The contempt power provided for in the rules of the impeachment trial is there for a reason—to ensure truthful participation in proceedings that aim to enforce the principle of accountability on high government officials.

We will see in the remaining days of the impeachment trial if the senator-judges would allow further disrespect in their proceedings.

[email protected].