Impeach court junks plea to admit Duterte’s bank records as evidence

MANILA, Philippines — The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday denied the House prosecution panel’s request to admit Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank records as evidence.

It cited the Bill of Rights, particularly the right against self-incrimination.

READ: Prosecution, defense teams clash anew on Sara Duterte’s bank records

Article continues after this advertisement

This came after the House prosecution panel submitted a request for admission on Sept. 8 covering Duterte’s personal circumstances and former public offices, her spouse Manases Carpio’s business interests, and various tax and bank records.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The defense panel then objected and sought to expunge the request.

In ruling over the matter, Presiding Officer and Senator-Judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero maintained that the right against self-incrimination remains protected even under the impeachment process.

“If the request is allowed, ‘any material and relevant matter of fact’ so requested for answer will be “tantamount to compelling” the respondent to be a witness against herself,” noted Escudero.

“Her failure to answer a request for admission, on the other hand, will be ‘deemed as an admission of the fact requested to be admitted,’” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

Moreover, Escudero noted that the request also exposes Duterte to “the additional peril of being held liable for perjury,” constituting compulsion, which is not allowed under the Constitution.

“While the impeachment court welcomes the prosecution’s desire to narrow the issues for trial, identify matters genuinely in dispute, and avoid unnecessary proof of uncontroverted matters, any such measure to expedite the proceedings must always yield to the protection of the substantial rights of the respondent under the Constitution,” the presiding officer said.

Article continues after this advertisement

Meanwhile, Escudero also affirmed that procedural due process requires the prosecution to establish the charges through competent evidence.

He said the it cannot shift its burden of proof to the respondent “through the simple expedient of a request for admission.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

He also disputed the prosecution’s position that impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, stating that this alone does not displace the safeguards accorded to a respondent. /apl