House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno on Wednesday asked the impeachment court to clarify how Vice President Sara Duterte should be addressed during her trial, after he questioned the defense team’s use of the term “accused.”
Before presenting the prosecution’s oral arguments on whether to lower the voting threshold required to convict Duterte, Diokno told presiding officer Senator Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero that the prosecution has consistently referred to Duterte as the “respondent.”
Diokno said he was surprised to hear defense counsel introduce herself as counsel for the “accused,” arguing that the impeachment proceeding is not a criminal case but a sui generis proceeding concerning Duterte’s fitness to remain in office.
“We all know that this is not a criminal proceeding. This is a sui generis proceeding. And of course, we do not want to condition the minds of anyone that this case is criminal in nature,” the house prosecutor said.
Escudero said the court should refer to Duterte as the “respondent,” consistent with previous impeachment proceedings and the court’s practice.
Diokno then asked the court to strike the defense counsel’s alleged reference to Duterte as the “accused” to prevent possible misconceptions among the public.
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison disputed Diokno’s recollection, saying the transcripts would show that the defense had consistently referred to Duterte as “respondent-accused,” not simply “accused.”
Sison argued that the impeachment articles contain charges that are criminal in nature, even if the proceeding itself is not a criminal action.
“Even though the prosecution feels that this is not a criminal action per se, the articles of impeachment will show that the charges are criminal in nature,” the defense said.
Diokno maintained that the case is “clearly not a criminal case,” saying it involves no criminal liability and instead concerns Duterte’s fitness to continue in office.
Sison, meanwhile, said the defense has consistently used the term “respondent-accused” and warned against creating the misconception that constitutional protections, including the presumption of innocence under the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the impeachment proceeding.
“I think there is no greater danger than a misconception in the idea that the constitutional presumption of innocence does not apply in this impeachment proceeding, or that the Bill of Rights under which that guarantee is embedded does not apply to this impeachment case.”
The exchange took place before the prosecution was set to present arguments on the proposed reduction of the voting threshold required for a conviction.
