IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF VP SARA DUTERTE (DAY 23)

Summary of Day 23: Impeachment Trial of VP Sara Duterte (Proceedings Focus)

Opening of the impeachment court

• The impeachment court formally convened and called the case to order for the impeachment trial of Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte (Case No. 004-2026).
• The court observed prayer, then called the roll of senator-judges to confirm a quorum (17 present).

Prosecution strategy change: Article 1 (misuse/misappropriation of confidential funds)

• The prosecution announced it would forgo further witness presentations under Article 1 after:
  • presenting 10 witnesses, and
  • stipulating testimony for two more,
  • totaling 12 of 27 intended witnesses.
• The prosecution argued that the evidence already presented—based on 4,750 documents—is sufficient to establish a clear pattern.
• The prosecution clarified it would not rest immediately on Article 1 because:
  • the court may still call additional witnesses later, and
  • the prosecution must remain ready to present accordingly.

Respondent (defense) response: constitutional concerns about calling the VP as witness

• Defense counsel (Attys. Luis Tro and Sheila Cson/Sheila C) objected to the prosecution’s repeated indications that the Vice President might be called.
• The defense argued that calling the accused to testify raises constitutional issues, particularly the right against testimonial compulsion (citing Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, and related jurisprudence).
• The court acknowledged the constitutional provision, stating that any ruling depends on proper motions (e.g., subpoena requests) and their timing.

Court ruling on procedure: possibility of court-called witnesses

• The presiding officer ruled that after the parties present their evidence-in-chief on Article 1, the court may decide whether to call additional witnesses.
• If the court calls witnesses:
  • both sides may cross-examine, and
  • later present rebuttal/sur-rebuttal related to the court-called testimony.

---

Scheduling and handling of documentary evidence

Marking exhibits

• There would be no trial on the next day and no trial on Thursday, to allow time for marking voluminous exhibits, including bank and insurance records.
• Scheduling/logistics were influenced by:
  • Senate budget deliberations, and
  • limited room availability.
• Exhibit marking would occur in a designated venue (e.g., PICC/appropriate room).

Overall trial calendar changes

• The presiding officer read a detailed schedule indicating trials are expected to be interrupted/suspended during budget months, with possible resumption later in the year.

---

Request for Admission: 104 requests and the timing dispute

• The prosecution submitted 104 requests for admission under Rule 26 (related to admission of genuineness of documents and truth of matters relevant to the case).
• Defense requested 15 days to respond (consistent with the rule).
• Prosecution sought a shorter timeframe (not fully accepted by the court).
• The defense argued about applicability and constitutional tension with the accused’s rights, while the court focused on ensuring adequate time for the defense without undermining due process.

Court ruling on the requests

• The court granted the respondent 15 days from that day to file comments/responses to the 104 requests for admission.
• The court emphasized that trial would continue during the 15-day period—15 days were for responding to admissions, not a suspension of trial.

---

Major constitutional/procedural debate: voting threshold (“all members” / 2/3 rule)

Issue raised by Senator Judge Irwin Tulfo

• A major procedural crisis was raised concerning voting for conviction/acquittal:
  • Some senator-judges were allegedly absent (e.g., abroad on medical leave; incarcerated/under custody).
  • The dispute focused on whether voting should be based on:
    • “all members” of the Senate (24), regardless of physical/legal ability to participate, or
    • only those within the Senate’s effective reach at the time of voting.

Clarification by Senator Judge Pia Cayetano

• Senator Judge Pia Cayetano contested how prior jurisprudence was characterized, clarifying that reliance on earlier cases was not unanimously accepted by their bloc.

Presiding officer’s resolution: amici curiae and oral arguments

• The chair ruled it could not definitively resolve the voting-threshold question immediately.
• The court would seek guidance from amicus curiae (“friends of the court”), including constitutional experts and possibly retired justices.
• Tentative timeline:
  • Amicus curiae hearing around September 16 (no trial that day),
  • Oral arguments by both prosecution and defense around September 23,
  • the vote would be scheduled after oral arguments, consistent with the process indicated.

Adversarial positions remain intact

• The court would hear and consider arguments from both sides on the threshold issue.
• It would not automatically assume that:
  • the prosecution seeks to lower the threshold, or
  • the defense seeks to maintain it.

---

Next steps for trial proceedings

• The court instructed the prosecution to provide a list of 3–4 witnesses for the next scheduled trial segment.
• Trial would resume as scheduled the following week, with the prosecution presenting witnesses under the next article (the transcript indicates a shift toward the ill-gotten wealth/unexplained wealth phase).

---

Presenters / Contributors

Presiding Officers and Senate Leadership

• Senate President: Senator Judge Gachelian
• Presiding officer (Senator-Justice/Chair): referenced multiple times as presiding officer; specifically mentioned as Center Justice Scoder and Senate President in the roll call context.

Senator Judges (named in roll call and discussion)

• Senator Judge Akino
• CTO Judge Kayano Alan
• CTO Judge Kayatano Pia
• Senator Judge Dear Rosa
• Senator Judge Erhersito
• CTO Judge Estrada
• Senator Judge Go
• CT Judge Ottoveros
• CT Judge Luxon
• CTO Judge Lapid
• Center Judge Learda
• CTO Judge Marcetta
• Center Judge Marcos
• CT Judge Padilia
• CTO Judge Pangilinan
• CT Judge Sto III
• CTO Judge Tulfo Irwin
• Center Judge Tul Furafi
• Senator Judge Villianva
• CTO Judge Villard Camille
• Senator Judge Villard Mark
• Senator Judge Zubiri
• Senator Judge Alan Cayatano (mentioned during threshold discussion)
• Senator Judge Pia Cayetano (mentioned during threshold/voting clarifications)

Additional senator-judges were referenced during discussion; some names appeared with subtitle/auto-subtitle errors (e.g., Padilia, Pangalina/Pangalinan, Vilaina/Villaina, Go, Luxon, Tulfo, etc.).

Prosecution Counsel

• Attorney Lorna Kabun (also appeared as “Kapun/Kabun” due to subtitle errors)
• Attorney Mark Luan (reference appeared garbled in one instance; prosecution mention includes “Attorney Mark” as lead in the dialogue)
• Attorney Sheila Cson (described as co-prosecutor/lead prosecutor for some article segments)
• Attorney Chair Jini Luistro (mentioned as lead public prosecutor)
• Attorney Chelle Jno / Attorney Jockno (subtitle errors likely)
• Attorney Michael Poe / Attorney Poa / Attorney Poe (involved in the requests-for-admission discussion)

Respondent/Defense Counsel

• Attorney Luis Tro
• Attorney Sheila Cson/Sheila C
• Attorney Paul (name appeared as “Attorney Paul” via subtitles)
• Attorney Michael Poet (referenced during the request-for-admission discussion)

Other Contributors

• Amicus curiae (planned): constitutional experts/retired justices (names not yet publicly announced during the transcript).
• Counsel for the Senate / Senate staff references were present implicitly through procedural statements (e.g., senate body and journal scheduling).