Senator-judges must learn to contradict presiding officer in impeachment trial - lawyer

Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.

The senator-judges should not always agree with whatever the ruling made by the presiding officer amid the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a lawyer said on Sunday.

“Ang presiding officer is presiding officer only. Kung ang iba mga senator-judges ay may contrary opinion sa sinasabi ng presiding officer, pwede naman nila ilagay 'yan sa boto. Unfortunately, mukhang pinababayan ng ibang senator-judges ang presiding officer, hindi nila sinasalungat,” said Rico Domingo, chairperson of Movement Against Disinformation, in an interview with Super Radyo dzBB.

(The presiding officer is a presiding officer only. If the other senator-judges have a contrary opinion to what the presiding officer is saying, they can put that to a vote. Unfortunately, it seems the other senator-judges are just leaving everything up to the presiding officer and not contradicting him.)

Domingo, a former president of the Philippine Bar Association, made the statement after former senator Antonio Trillanes IV held a press conference following the withdrawal of his name as witness in the impeachment trial of the Vice President.

Trillanes also urged Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero to prioritize the presentation of evidence over technicalities. The former senator also said that he felt unwelcome after the presiding officer refused to issue a subpoena for him to appear.

“Kung hindi abogado siguro ang presiding officer, eh papasukin nila ang sasabihin ni [former] Senator Trillanes,” said Domingo.

(If the presiding officer were perhaps not a lawyer, they would allow what former senator Trillanes has to say.)

“Unfortunately, masyadong technical ang presentation or the ruling of the presiding officer. Mukhang mayroong kaunting heeding si dating senator Trillanes na mukhang hindi siya papayagan even assuming na siya ay sinubpoena o hindi sinubpoena,” he added.

(Unfortunately, the presentation or the ruling of the presiding officer is too technical. It seems former senator Trillanes has a sense/apprehension that he won't be allowed to speak, even assuming he was subpoenaed or not.)

Moreover, Domingo said Escudero should have allowed the House prosecution panel to present Trillanes as a witness.

“Kung hindi sila tugon sa ruling ng presiding officer, for example in this particular case whether to present Senator Trillanes at that time, sana pinagbigyan na 'yun because after all, after juris prudence ang panel, the prosecution panel, has the right to present the witness at its own, hindi dapat papakialaman ng presiding officer,” he said.

(If they do not agree with the ruling of the presiding officer, for example in this particular case on whether to present Senator Trillanes at that time, hopefully that would have been granted because after all, according to jurisprudence, the panel—the prosecution panel—has the right to present witnesses at its own discretion, and the presiding officer should not interfere.)

However, Senator-judge Panfilo "Ping" Lacson earlier said the decision not to subpoena Trillanes as a witness in the trial did not rest solely with Escudero.

Impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol also said it was the prosecution which did not name Trillanes in time for the issuance of a subpoena. He reiterated that despite this, Trillanes still would have been allowed to appear as a voluntary witness. —RF, GMA News