00:00Before we start counting the minutes, Your Honor, if I may just seek some clarification from the Honorable Court.
00:06Please.
00:07Your Honor, in all the orders of the Honorable Court, in the pleadings of the respondent, as well as the
00:14pleadings of the prosecution, we have referred to the Vice President as the respondent.
00:21But I was surprised yesterday morning when the counsel for the respondent introduced herself as counsel for the accused.
00:31We all know that this is not a criminal proceeding.
00:34This is a sui generis proceeding.
00:37And, of course, we do not want to condition the minds of anyone that this case is criminal in nature.
00:44Therefore, may I seek clarification from the Honorable Court?
00:46How should we address the Vice President, Sarah Zimmerman Duterte?
00:53As with previous, as with previous rulings of the previous impeachment court, and as this court and the presiding officer
01:00has always been consistent with, we address the respondent, Vice President, as the respondent.
01:08That's why the chair also refers to the opposing side as counsel for respondents.
01:15Accordingly, Your Honor, may I move to strike the statement of counsel for the respondent when she introduced herself as
01:24counsel for the accused so that the public will be properly guided, Your Honor.
01:29Maybe hear from Attorney Sela first.
01:31Attorney Sela?
01:31Just a quick correction, Your Honor.
01:34The TSN will bear out that the defense or the counsel for the respondent did not refer to the respondent
01:43as accused by itself, but as respondent-accused, Your Honor.
01:48Now, if the prosecution wishes a clarification on why the defense refers to the Vice President as respondent-accused in
01:56this proceeding, even though the prosecution feels that this is not a criminal action per se, the articles of impeachment
02:10will show that the charges are criminal in nature, Your Honor.
02:15First of all, may I respond, Your Honor, please?
02:19Then I will also ask a quick rejoinder, Your Honor.
02:21Kindly let Attorney Sela finish.
02:24I will just ask for also an opportunity for a rejoinder after the response of the Honorable Congressman Chell Jock.
02:33The Honorable Jock may make a rebuttal.
02:38We appeal to the record, Your Honor, please.
02:41I distinctly recall hearing the word accused, not respondent accused, and I believe the transcripts will bear me out.
02:50Second, if Your Honor, please, this is clearly not a criminal case by any stretch.
02:57There is no criminal liability involved in this case.
03:01This is a case involving the fitness of the Vice President to continue in office.
03:07And as we all know, it's sui generis.
03:09Therefore, it would be improper, and it may even lead to misconceptions if the respondent's counsel were to refer to
03:19the Vice President as the accused.
03:22I have not...
03:23Rejoinder, are you done, Honorable Jock?
03:26Yes, Your Honor.
03:27Rejoinder, Attorney Sela?
03:28Yes, Your Honor.
03:30The records will show that at no point in time from the start of this hearing until today that the
03:38defense referred to the Vice President as accused alone.
03:43In fact, we are consistent in referring to the Vice President as respondent accused.
03:48Now, if the wordy of the gentleman is a supposed misconception in the use of the term accused in conjunction
03:59with respondent accused,
04:01then I think there is no greater danger than a misconception in the idea that the constitutional presumption of innocence
04:12does not apply in this impeachment proceeding or that the Bill of Rights under which that guarantee is embedded does
04:21not apply to this impeachment case, Your Honor.
04:25Finally, any sir rejoinder, if any, any sir rejoinder or honorable Jock before the Chair makes a ruling?
04:31Thank you, Your Honor.
04:32The Bill of Rights, Your Honor, applies to all proceedings.
04:36However, when we speak of the presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, that is clearly only applicable to criminal
04:45cases.
04:46And we do not want either this court or especially the public to be misled into believing that those particular
04:55burdens imposed in criminal cases apply in this particular case, Your Honor.
05:01That's all.
05:03Quick, sir, Rebado, Your Honor.
05:06Yes, before the Chair makes a ruling, Attorney Sheila.
05:08Again, Your Honor, the records will show that at no point in time did the defense claim that the quantum
05:14of proof needed in this impeachment case or for this impeachment court to arrive at any decision is proof beyond
05:21reasonable doubt.
05:22I think the quantum or the degree of proof needed to be shown by the prosecution in order to discharge
05:27its burden of proof is embedded or ingrained in the decision of the court in Duterte versus HOR, Your Honor.
05:35And so that statement that the constitutional presumption of innocence, it's not debatable, Your Honor.
05:41It's not a matter of debate, Your Honor.
05:43We're talking about the guarantee of the constitutional right to presumption of innocence, Your Honor.
05:50In fact, the records will also show and the media reports would show that the Honorable Jokno stated that the
06:02constitutional presumption of innocence does not apply in this case, which we find is dangerous to convey to the general
06:09public at sa lahat ng mga mag-aaral ng batas.
06:38Thank you, Your Honor.
06:42What we call arbiter diktat.
06:44Kasi po, wala pa pong trial nung umabot ang kasong iyon sa Supreme Court.
06:49So any statements made by the court about the trial are not binding.
06:55They are simply as an aside, as mentioned in the case itself.
07:01And I think that's very clear from the decision.
07:03Thank you, Your Honor.
07:04Chair will now make a ruling.
07:05No need, Attorney Sheila.
07:07Chair will make a ruling.
07:08The chair has checked the TSN.
07:12Attorney Sheila is correct.
07:14She said respondent accused.
07:17To quote on page four of the TSN, the same appearance for the respondent accused, Your Honor.
07:23Secondly, there are, given that it's sui generis, admittedly, given that the very first ruling on impeachment, in the case
07:34of Indre Horilenyo, actually impeachment, but that was a judge.
07:39Wala pa pong constitutional officers at that time, because this was pre-1973.
07:46Referred to impeachment processes as criminal in nature.
07:52Second, as correctly pointed out, too, in Duterte BAHR, which the Honorable Diocno characterized as obiter, from his point of
08:01view, stated,
08:03In part, impeachment is primarily for the protection of the people as a body politic and not for the punishment
08:10of the offender.
08:12Impeachment is primarily a legal process in the sense that, like administrative cases, it results in the removal of a
08:21public officer, and, like criminal cases, it requires evidentiary rules and due process.
08:29Share, therefore, rules against the motion of the Council, rather, the motion of the Honorable Diocno, a member of the
08:39panel of prosecutors, and will not so delete the referral of the Council for the Respondent to the Respondent or
08:50the Respondent Accused.
Comments