Skip to playerSkip to main content
‘NO PERSON SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF’

Lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison opposed the prosecution’s attempt to have Vice President Sara Duterte testify at her impeachment trial. Sison said Duterte is already represented by her legal counsel in the proceedings and added that the defense may submit a formal written comment if the prosecution continues with the request. (Video courtesy of Senate of the Philippines)

Subscribe to the Manila Bulletin Online channel! -
https://www.youtube.com/TheManilaBulletin

Visit our website at http://mb.com.ph
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/manilabulletin
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/manila_bulletin
Instagram: https://instagram.com/manilabulletin
Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@manilabulletin

#VPSaraOnTrial
#ManilaBulletinOnline
#ManilaBulletin
#LatestNews

Category

🗞
News
Transcript
00:00put in that guarantee that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself or to be a witness or
00:07that there should not be a testimonial compulsion from the accused herself, it did not qualify that provision.
00:18We would just like to give a brief comment and perhaps a more appropriate response would be in order when
00:29we already receive any formal request for subpoena.
00:33As the good counsel had mentioned, they are not still asking for any issuance of subpoena for the respondent, but
00:42briefly, I would just like to address two points in her, what she calls a two-minute manifestation, but in
00:51reality, it would seem to me that it's more than two minutes.
00:58Well, there's a third one, and the third one, I would have to say first, I'd like to thank the
01:03Madam Counsel for not mentioning the very words that the court had already repeatedly ruled are not allowed in this
01:17courtroom or anywhere else.
01:19But the second point I'd like to make is with respect to the manifestation where she adverted to the prosecution's
01:31desire or wish for the respondent to be present in this trial.
01:36I think this matter and issue has been settled on day one, and until now, it is clear that respondent
01:47is here through her counsel.
01:49If respondent is not interested in this trial, she would not have even sent her lawyers to defend her in
01:57this case.
01:58Now, as to my third manifestation in respect of the intention of the prosecution to call the respondent, again, we
02:08will also reserve our right to file our formal written comment to any such request.
02:17Yes, but just very briefly, I think that without me expounding or articulating on these principles, this court would be
02:26able to appreciate that there is an innate problem in that kind of request.
02:34Just on five points, just on five points, because the Constitution prohibits this kind of testimonial compulsion from the accused
02:43herself.
02:43I know that the response would be, this is sui generis, this is not exactly a purely criminal proceeding.
02:52But nonetheless, when Section 17, Article 3 of our 1987 Constitution put in that guarantee that no person shall be
03:01compelled to testify against himself or to be a witness or that there should not be a testimonial compulsion from
03:10the accused herself, it did not qualify that provision.
03:15Now, the second thing is, with respect to that first point, this right is absolute.
03:22And this is not only a simple right or a statutory right, this is a fundamental right.
03:28This is a right emanating from the Constitution itself and one that emanates from the guarantees under Article 3 of
03:35our 1987 Constitution.
03:37And I know that this is the right and I know that this is not only a person who is
03:42in the face of this wall or an attorney's office or an attorney's office, but it is important to understand
03:49this also for all the people who are in the face of this wall or an attorney's office.
04:20Now, my third point, in respect of this preliminary manifestation of such intention to call the Vice President,
04:29as a witness for them, is that the Constitution and Jurisprudence are historically clear on the absolute prohibition against compelling
04:40the accused to give testimony for the prosecution.
04:43We will be able to cite a case that starts, no, hindi lang itong mga nagdaang taon, kundi nung unang
04:52panahon pa, ibig sabihin ganoon, kabigat, kalawak at kalalim ang garantiang ibinibigayin ng Constitution sa ilalim ng saligang batas.
05:00Now, the fourth point is that the aim of the constitutional injunction against a testimonial compulsion is aimed against a
05:10more far-reaching evil in the words of the Supreme Court.
05:14It is a guard against the recurrence of the inquisition and the Star Chamber, even if not in their stark
05:24brutality.
05:25I will leave it there, no?
05:26Hindi ko na siya ipapaliwanag pa habang hinihintay namin yung formal na request ng subpina mula sa prosecution.
05:34And finally, at ito siguro yung isa sa pinakamahalagang batayan para manindigan kami sa anumang pagtatangka na pilitin ng vice
05:46-presidente, ang respondent, na magbigay ng testimonya laban sa kanyang kalooban.
05:52And this is, the preservation of liberties does not depend on motives.
05:57And while the motives of men are often commendable, we must remember, however, that the preservation of our fundamental liberties
06:07does not depend on motives.
06:10A suppression of liberty has the same effect, whether the suppressor is a reformer or an outlaw.
06:20And the only protection against misguided zeal is constant alertness to infractions or the guarantees of liberty guaranteed in our
06:31Constitution.
06:32And each surrender of liberty to the demands of the moment makes easier another larger surrender.
06:40And the battle over the Bill of Rights is a never-ending one.
06:45Hindi ko po itong mga salita, ito po ay salita ng ating Korte Suprema.
06:50With that, I will end this brief manifestation.
06:55Thank you, Attorney Sheila.
06:56We shall await the formal motion to be filed by the panel of prosecutors.
07:00And you can make your formal comment.
07:02We can open it to our arguments if necessary before the Chair makes a ruling.
07:06But we do take note, Honorable Luistro, of the constitutional provisions,
07:11specifically Article 3, Section 17.
07:14So I hope when you make your motion that you will argue insofar as it's, if at all, non-applicability.
07:23But, Attorney Sheila, to recall also in the previous impeachment complaint that the Senate had,
07:28the respondent himself, then Chief Justice Corona, decided to appear.
07:32So although there may seem to be, without preempting the ruling of the Chair,
07:36there may seem to be a prohibition against opposing counsel, calling the respondent,
07:42nothing prevents the respondent from deciding through her counsel to also appear, should she wish to do so,
07:50basing it on Corona and what he did.
07:52We are aware of that, Your Honor.
07:54But I think the Corona event is different, at least at this point, Your Honor.
08:00Because in that case, I think the decision to testify was voluntary.
08:06It was?
08:07Yes, Your Honor.
08:08And so, at this point, since there has not been any formal motion or request for subpoena,
08:16then we will reserve and file our comment at the appropriate time.
08:22Now, Attorney, now, the Honorable Luistro...
08:34You
Comments

Recommended