‘An alteration of a longtime order of presentation of proof at this stage won’t solely violate the respondent’s constitutional rights but in addition weaken the integrity of the proceedings,’ the protection legal professionals argue
Vice President Sara Duterte has made it clear — she is against altering the sequence of the proof in her impeachment trial.
She filed a proper opposition earlier than the impeachment courtroom on Tuesday, July 28.
The subsequent day, on July 29, the Senate impeachment courtroom dominated that the established order shall be preserved and the sequence will stay the identical. The prosecution should end presenting its proof on the 4 articles of impeachment, after which the protection could have its flip to current its personal proof.
Apparently, Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero requested the events if they’re open to altering the present order of the presentation. Escudero, nevertheless, mentioned that if one of many events disagrees, then the established order stays.
“We will end with the evidence-in-chief of the prosecution for all of the articles of impeachment that they won’t withdraw…. Thereafter, we are going to hear the evidence-in-chief of the respondent for all of the articles that stay or all of the articles that proof shall be introduced by the prosecution,” Escudero dominated on Wednesday.
However what are Duterte’s causes for opposing this? Is sequence actually an enormous deal?
Constitutional violation?
In sum, Duterte raised 4 most important arguments:
- It violates ideas of honest play and due course of
- It goes towards what was agreed upon through the pre-trial convention
- It defies the Senate impeachment courtroom’s pre-trial order
- It shifts the burden of proving the accusations from the prosecution to the respondent
The protection cited Article III, Part 1 of the 1987 Structure: “No particular person shall be disadvantaged of life, liberty, or property with out due strategy of regulation, nor shall any particular person be denied the equal safety of the legal guidelines.”
In accordance with Duterte’s legal professionals, this constitutional assure ensures {that a} respondent shall be given a good and affordable alternative to know the allegations towards him/her. This additionally ensures that she shall be knowledgeable in regards to the alleged proof towards her and she is going to have the ability to put together a complete protection technique.
“Requiring the respondent to current proof per Article earlier than the Prosecution has totally introduced its case-in-chief for all Articles undermines this constitutional assure and can deprive her of the chance to be totally knowledgeable of the character and explanation for the accusation towards her and the evidentiary foundation supporting them, if any,” mentioned the protection’s reply.
“Thus, to change the established order of trial at this juncture will represent an arbitrary departure from the respondent’s proper to due course of, safety towards capricious proceedings, and the tenets of honest play,” it added.
The protection legal professionals additionally argued that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They mentioned that if the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, “the accused needn’t even reply any of the costs and should be acquitted.”
For the prosecution, its proposed sequence “permits [Duterte] a direct alternative to deal with the proof introduced on a specific article earlier than the proceedings transfer to the following, whereas enabling the impeachment courtroom to obtain and consider all proof relating to every cost in a extra complete and self-contained method.”
Ought to follow pre-trial order
The Duterte camp argued that the pre-trial order issued by the impeachment courtroom ought to govern the impeachment proceedings.
“Contemplating that the aim of pre-trial is to take the trial of the case out of the realm of shock and maneuvering, any deviation from this agreed upon sequence will undermine the binding pressure of the Pre- Trial Order and render the whole pre-trial continuing meaningless. Modifying a pre-trial order throughout trial indubitably ends in manifest injustice,” mentioned the protection group.
“An alteration of a longtime order of presentation of proof at this stage won’t solely violate the respondent’s constitutional rights but in addition weaken the integrity of the proceedings,” it added.
Throughout the impeachment trial of former chief justice Renato Corona, the protection introduced their proof solely after the prosecution rested its case.
In legal proceedings, the protection additionally presents its proof solely after the prosecution’s presentation.
In the meantime, protection spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa refuted insinuations that the protection opposed the change in sequence as a result of they haven’t any witnesses.
“That’s not true,” mentioned Poa. – Rappler.com
