HOUSE prosecutor Joel R. Chua of Manila on Thursday questioned how senator judges could arrive at a fair and informed decision in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s impeachment trial without personally observing witnesses as they respond to questions from both the prosecution and defense.
“So paano nila masasabi, paano sila makakapag-desisyon nang tama kung hindi nila nakikita personally ang mga testigo habang sila ay dina-direct o kinu-cross ng prosecution at defense?” Chua said.
The lawmaker explained that personally observing witnesses during direct and cross-examination allows judges to assess their credibility and determine the reliability of their testimonies. He raised the matter during a House press conference while discussing the issue of which senators should be counted in determining the votes required for conviction.
Chua also referenced the Supreme Court ruling in People v. Maceda regarding detained senators, citing restrictions on the exercise of professional duties or holding office while under detention.
“Ibig sabihin hangga’t sila’y nakakulong, hindi pwedeng mag-exercise ng kanilang profession,” he said.
When asked about the prosecution’s position on reducing the required number of votes for conviction, Chua said, “Ang naging opinion na ng prosecution ay dapat ito ibaba.”
Meanwhile, House prosecution spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong clarified that the panel’s position does not seek to change the Constitution’s two-thirds voting requirement. Instead, he said, the issue involves determining how the requirement should be applied based on the number of senators qualified to participate and vote.
“Ang naiba lang po is how to interpret yung two-thirds,” said Alonto Adiong, the representative of Lanao del Sur’s 1st District.
Alonto Adiong cited the views of retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on qualified voters, retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s explanation of voting fractions, and retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban’s emphasis on active participation in reaching a fair judgement.
“It’s not actually arbitrary,” Alonto Adiong said, explaining that the proposed interpretation is based on legal principles rather than a random adjustment of the requirement.
Further explaining Chief Justice Puno’s position, he said the interpretation does not alter the constitutional two-thirds provision but seeks to establish the proper method for arriving at an actual number of votes required for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty to exclusively try and decide impeachment cases.
“Hindi iniiba ang provision ng two-thirds, nilalagyan lang ng tamang interpretasyon paano magkaroon at mag-arrive into an actual number na ang Senado ay mag-respond doon sa nirequire ng Constitution sa kanila to exclusively try and decide,” said Alonto Adiong.
Chua emphasized that the prosecution will continue preparing and presenting its evidence regardless of the Senate’s final determination on the required vote count.
“Pwede ito ay 16, 15, 14, pero kami ay naghahanda para maipakita ang ebidensya nang sa ganon ay makumbinsi natin sila sa tibay ng ebidensya,” he said.
metrosundaily
