Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief defense attorney, Atty. Sheila Sison, has called on both sides of the Senate impeachment trial to refrain from making legal judgments during procedural announcements, emphasizing that such rulings belong solely to the impeachment court.
Sison raised the issue on Wednesday, July 15, following the House prosecution’s announcement that they were dropping several witnesses related to Article IV of the impeachment complaint.
While addressing the tribunal, Sison clarified that the defense did not object to the prosecution dropping the witnesses. However, she raised concerns over statements that she believed jumped to legal and factual conclusions.
”I’m not objecting to the manifestation of the prosecution or even the manner by which it was delivered,” Sison told the impeachment court.
Her objection followed a statement on July 14 by private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan, who told the court that the prosecution would no longer call Office of the Vice President Chief of Staff Atty. Zuleika Lopez and House Legislative Security Bureau officer Capt. Belinda Bello to testify. Kapunan claimed that the evidence presented in the first five days of the trial was already sufficient.
Sison argued that routine procedural announcements should not be utilized to push specific interpretations of law or evidence.
”My concern is that these manifestations are almost always accompanied by lengthy discourse containing conclusions of law and fact, when, in reality, only this impeachment court can determine them,” Sison said, referring to Kapunan’s manifestation.
She warned that making these claims in open court could skew public and judicial perceptions of the trial.
”Why is this a concern for the defense? Because this affects the fairness and balance of this impeachment court and the way it would perceive whatever manifestations or expressions of sentiments both parties deliver before this court and before the public,” she said.
Sison stressed that the trial must focus strictly on presenting and evaluating evidence.
”We are before the impeachment court, and therefore we should try evidence and not advocate for conclusions or positions that we may have already made even before we went to this trial,” she said.
To prevent future issues, she proposed that any future notices about withdrawn witnesses be kept strictly to the facts, without added legal spin.
”If the only intent really is just to withdraw witnesses, then perhaps that fact alone should be mentioned without interpretations of the law. I think that would be more fair for everyone and for the guidance of the public and this court,” Sison said.
During the discussion, Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, presiding over the trial, likened the prosecution’s move to a “tender of excluded evidence” and asked if the defense would want the same leeway. Sison rejected that comparison.
”With due respect, we disagree because there is no excluded evidence,” she said. “They never offered it in the first place, and they merely withdrew the presentation of the remaining witnesses listed in their pretrial brief.”
Sison made it clear that she was not looking for special favors.
”I’m not asking for any special treatment or privilege. All I’m asking is that the parties be guided against making conclusions of law that merely advocate their respective positions,” she said.
She ended by reiterating that only the judges have the right to draw conclusions.
”Conclusions are really just for the court to make and not for either of the parties,” Sison said.
Following Sison’s statements, Escudero instructed both the prosecution and the defense to keep future notices regarding withdrawn witnesses brief and factual, applying the rule equally to both sides.