Adiong: Senators can judge evidence, witness better if they’re present

MANILA, Philippines — Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong believes that senator-judges will have a better appreciation of the witnesses’ testimonies and the pieces of evidence if they are present inside the courtroom while Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial is going on.

In a press briefing on Tuesday, Alonto Adiong and other individuals affiliated with the prosecution team were asked about rumors that some senator-judges were merely monitoring the trial from areas outside of the Senate plenary hall, and the overall lower number of senator-judges attending the trial.

READ: Ex-bank executive: OVP’s P125-M single transaction ‘unusual’ 

Article continues after this advertisement

During the trial on Monday, only 13 senator-judges showed up, which is barely enough to declare the presence of a quorum.  Alonto Adiong, spokesperson for the prosecution team, said that the senator-judges’ presence inside the plenary where the trial was held could have given them more insight on the witness’ testimony.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“Mahalaga po itong impeachment trial na ito […] So ine-expect sana ho natin na ang ating mga senador ay nand’yan para sila ho mismo, bilang mga huwes, ay ma-observe nila ‘yong exchanges, ma-observe po nila ‘yong manner of response ng ating mga witnesses para po mabigyan din sila ng, apart from the appreciation of the documents, mabigyan din po sila ng first-hand knowledge kung paano po ‘yong naging sagot,” he said.

(This impeachment trial is important […] So we expect that our senators are present physically, so as judges, they can observe the exchanges, the manner of response of our witnesses so that they will have, apart from the appreciation of the documents, first-hand knowledge of how they gave an answer.)

“Kaya nga po pine-presenta sila sa witness stand, kasi ‘yong kabuuan po ng testimoniya nila — including the mannerism — would also play a significant part in the determination of either guilt or acquittal ng isang nakaupong huwes,” he added.

(That’s why they are presented before the witness stand, because the entirety of the testimony — including the mannerism — would also play a significant part in the determination of either guilt or acquittal from a sitting senator-judge.)

Article continues after this advertisement

According to the lawmaker, the prosecution panel respects the Senate’s mandate to hold an impeachment trial, but he also noted that this demand from the 1987 Constitution to try and decide on impeachment cases should prompt them to be present at all times possible.

“Nire-respeto natin sila kung ano sa kanilang paraan, kung paano nila ma-appreciate ito, nire-respeto rin po natin ang kapangyarihan ng Senado para po magbigay sila kung ano mang kaukulang leeway sa kanilang mga miyembro, nakaupong senator-huwes. Pero ang nag-demand po kasi […] the demand of the Constitution (is) to be present all the time,” he said.

Article continues after this advertisement

(We respect how they will address this, how they appreciate the matter, and we respect the Senate’s power to provide the appropriate leeway to their members, the sitting senator-judges.  But what made the demand is […] the demand of the Constitution (is) to be present all the time.)

“So mas maigi at mas makakabuti po, hindi po sa prosecution side, mas makakabuti po sa korte na sila po mismo, itong mga sitting judges, ay maupo at ma-obserbahan nila, ma-witness nila first-hand, physically, ‘yong nagiging testimoniya ng bawat witness,” he added.

(So it will be better not only for the prosecution side, but for the court itself if these sitting judges will sit inside and observe, witness first-hand, physically, what the testimony of each witness was.)

Counsel for the prosecution Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said that Adiong’s comments and call are based on jurisprudence, noting that there are several decisions which recognize the importance of judges being present to have a better understanding of each side’s arguments, and to have the proper decision when the time comes that the court has to decide on the case.

“This is recognized under jurisprudence, na recognize po ‘yan ng jurisprudence in a lot of cases na napakahalaga na ‘yong mahistrado na magbibigay ng pagpapasya kung convicted or guilty for example ang isang accused, mahalaga na siya mismo ‘yong nakapanood ng personal kung paano nagtestigo ‘yong mga nagbigay ng testimonya,” Tolosa said.

(This is recognized under jurisprudence, it was recognized in the jurisprudence of a lot of cases that the judges’ role in deciding whether an accused is convicted or guilty, for example, it is important that they themselves personally saw how witnesses gave their testimony.)

“Dahil nga napakahalagang makita mo ng personal kung paano ‘yong the way he conducted himself, paano siya sumagot sa tanong, mannerisms, reactions, et cetera.  So just to point out quickly na itong sinabi ni Cong. Zia, in fact it’s recognized under jurisprudence, ‘yong importantansya po n’yan,” he added.

(Because it is important that you see  the way he conducted himself, how they answered questions, mannerisms, reactions, et cetera.  So just to point out quickly what Cong. Zia said, in fact it’s recognized under jurisprudence, the importance of being present.)

Aside from senator-judges currently detained due different non-bailable cases, several members of the Senate Impeachment Court were also not seen inside the plenary hall on Monday, like Senator Loren Legarda.

Meanwhile, three members of the Minority who were initially present when trial resumed — Senator-judges Robinhood Padilla, Mark Villar, and Bong Go — went out and monitored the trial from the Senate lounge.

Padilla posted a photo of him with the two others on his Facebook page.

Monday’s trial featured a key testimony from former Office of the Vice President (OVP) special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta, who admitted that she indeed handed over the duty of disbursing the OVP’s confidential funds (CF) to Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) chief Col. Raymund Dante Lachica.

When counsel for the prosecution Amando Virgil Ligutan asked why she did such a thing, Acosta said it was upon Duterte’s orders — which the prosecution panel believes is a violation of Joint Circular No. 2015-01.

READ: Gina Acosta again says Duterte ordered P125M release to Lachica

Tolosa said there should be no more doubt whether it was Duterte who ordered the transfer of the allocations to Lachica after Acosta’s testimony.

READ: Tolosa: No more doubt if Duterte ordered transfer of CF to Lachica

Acosta is the sixth witness presented by the prosecution for Article I.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Previously, the prosecution presented former LandBank department managers Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano, who used to manage the branches where OVP and DepEd encashed their CF allocations; and state auditors Roderick Wamil and Xylene Mae del Campo, who scrutinized the financial books of Duterte’s offices. /jpv