VICE President Sara Z. Duterte’s defense has revived procedural objections concerning the impeachment complaint and the prosecution’s financial evidence despite earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court (SC) and Senate impeachment court, prompting questions about why it continues to contest documents that prosecutors describe as common exhibits.
House prosecutor Terry L. Ridon of Bicol Saro Party-list criticized the defense’s renewed argument that Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) were not attached to the original proceedings before the House Committee on Justice.
“Alam niyo hindi ko talaga maintindihan yung estratehiya po ng depensa kasi una sa lahat binalikan naman po nila na yun pong SALN daw po ay hindi nakalakip doon sa House sa justice committee proceeding when in fact nasagot na yan at the level of the Supreme Court, nasagot na po yan at the level of the Senate impeachment court pero inulit-ulit naman po nila yun pong bagay na ito,” Ridon explained.
Speaking during an ambush interview Tuesday, Ridon maintained that the objections repeated legal questions raised during earlier stages of the proceedings, including challenges to the House’s handling of the impeachment complaints and the acquisition of financial records.
“Pangalawa reni-iterate naman ho nila yung posisyon nila relating to, referring to the proceedings as a fishing expedition,” Ridon pointed out.
On August 5, the Supreme Court dismissed as moot consolidated petitions challenging the House impeachment proceedings because the articles had already been approved and transmitted to the Senate, although that dismissal did not constitute a final ruling on every objection concerning the admissibility of evidence.
The Senate impeachment court subsequently authorized the production of banking and tax records through subpoenas, allowing prosecutors to examine transactions and financial declarations relevant to the remaining unexplained wealth charge.
“And nasagot na rin ho yan eh noon pong Senate impeachment court nitong nagdaan na we are not talking about a fishing expedition here kasi lahat naman po ng mga ito ay mga ebidensya, dokumento na nagmula po sa mga legal na prosesong pinagdaanan through the entity of the impeachment process from the House proceedings to the Senate proceedings,” Ridon maintained.
Ridon raised a separate concern about documents that he described as common exhibits of the prosecution and defense, questioning why Duterte’s lawyers were objecting to their inclusion in the prosecution’s formal offer.
“More importantly, these are also common exhibits of a defense,” Ridon emphasized.
The existence of common exhibits does not necessarily mean that both parties agree on their interpretation or evidentiary value, although prosecutors maintain that documents originating from Duterte’s own declarations and official records should be evaluated on their merits.
“So, what are they objecting on if these are pieces of evidence in our formal offer of evidence, hindi ho ba?” Ridon questioned.
“So talagang, I guess that is what people, what people actually call talagang wala na hong mataktak na paliwanag dito po sa paglilitis na ito,” Ridon added, expressing frustration over the defense’s continuing procedural objections.
“That the defense is defenseless is probably a good description of it,” Ridon remarked, as Duterte’s lawyers prepare to present their own evidence on Nov. 9 and challenge the prosecution’s allegations before the senator-judges
metrosundaily
