SENATOR-judges have all the right to ask clarificatory questions during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, but they must remain impartial and avoid appearing to advocate for either party, House impeachment team adviser and spokesperson Robert “Ace” Barbers said Friday.
He stressed that responsibility for confidential funds misuse cannot be confined to the special disbursing officers who withdrew or released the money when government rules assign responsibilities to the head of the agency.
Barbers made the statement during an online House prosecution team briefing with prosecution counsel Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr., along with spokesperson Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Louise Co.
The panel was responding to Palace Press Officer Claire Castro’s observation that some senator-judges appeared to be acting as defense lawyers instead of impartial adjudicators. She had also criticized suggestions that responsibility should rest only with the special disbursing officer, or SDO, rather than the agency head.
Co emphasized that the functions of senator-judges should be distinguished from those of the prosecution and defense lawyers.
“It’s the job of the House Committee on Justice members, and I think of the senator-judges as well, to ask clarificatory questions,” Co said.
The prosecution and defense, meanwhile, are responsible for advancing their respective positions, she explained.
Barbers agreed that senator-judges had the authority to seek clarification, particularly because they would ultimately assess the evidence and decide the case.
“The judges must always be impartial and should not show any bias,” Barbers said.
“Kailangan maintindihan din kasi sila ang maghuhusga, sila ’yung maghuhukom. But sa kanilang pagtatanong ng clarification, hindi po dapat magpapakita ng bias.”
Barbers said the public was also observing how the senator-judges performed their constitutional role, not merely the conduct of the parties and witnesses.
“Hindi lamang yung prosecution, hindi lang yung defense, hindi lang yung witness ang binabantayan at pinanood nila rito. Pinanood din nila ang ating mga Senator Judges. So I guess the presiding officer must remind them of their duties and to remain impartial in this issue,” he said.
Tolosa emphasized that the testimony of former Commission on Audit Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO) auditor Roderick Wamil did not place responsibility solely in the hands of the concerned SDOs.
“Liability is not on the special disbursement officer alone. In fact, higher responsibility and accountability are placed on the head of agency,” Tolosa said, summarizing Wamil’s testimony.
Tolosa noted that Wamil cited government auditing law and Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which regulates the allocation, use and liquidation of confidential and intelligence funds.
“It is the head of the agency who’s directly and primarily responsible for all funds and properties pertaining to his or her agency,” Tolosa said.
He added that the joint circular tasks the agency head with supervising the use of confidential funds and ensuring that liquidation requirements are properly and strictly observed.
The prosecution earlier presented documents bearing Duterte’s signatures such as plans, disbursement vouchers, accomplishment reports, liquidation records and certifications involving confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education.
Co said the participation of SDOs Gina Acosta and Edward Fajarda did not necessarily end the accountability inquiry.
“Hindi natin masasabi that the buck stops at just the special disbursing officer,” Co said.
metrosundaily
