Can prosecution make Sara Duterte a witness in her own impeachment trial?

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

'Her testimony will be performative only and not have any substantive value. But we can see her behavior, temperament, respect for the senator-judges,' law professor Tony La Viña says

MANILA, Philippines – The prosecution, on the second day of the impeachment trial, revealed one of its strongest ammunitions against Vice President Sara Duterte: herself.

“That is my query this afternoon, because anent presentation of witness on the first article that we will be presenting, which is grave threats and acts of sedition, your honor. One of the key witnesses, hostile, albeit hostile, would be the Vice President,” said House private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan on Tuesday, July 7.

“And therefore, if we can inquire if it is her intention to again appear in the premises of the Senate, because we are already respectfully informing this honorable court that we will manifest that we will have a written request for her presence in connection with this article on grave threats, your honor,” she added.

Duterte is on trial over four articles of impeachment: alleged misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery of public officials, and threats to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family.

The House prosecution started its presentation by zeroing in on Duterte’s alleged assassination plot against the President.

“In my view, her testimony will be performative only and not have any substantive value. But we can see her behavior, temperament, respect for the senator-judges, etc.,” legal luminary and law professor Tony La Viña told Rappler, adding that “prior behavior” is important to establish a pattern in cases like this.

Possible complications

The complication for the prosecution, however, is if Duterte invokes her constitutional rights.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa reiterated that the 1987 Constitution protects a person against self-incrimination, or your own words being used against you, before a court.

“‘Pag ‘yong respondent mismo o ‘yong akusado mismo, hindi puwedeng [ma]-compel na mag-testify against himself or herself (A respondent or an accused cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself),” said Poa.

“That’s very clear under the Constitution. Of course, there’s room to argue here and there. Abangan na lang natin siguro (Let’s wait for that) once the motion is, in fact, made. By the prosecution, we will definitely submit our position on the matter,” he added.

Poa was referring to Article III, Section 17 of the Constitution, which contains a person’s right against self-incrimination.

“While impeachment is not a criminal trial, it still carries significant penalties that make the logic of the prohibition still applicable…. If the VP does voluntarily testify as a witness for the defense, the prosecution will have the opportunity to confront her,” University of the Philippines College of Law lecturer Oliver Xavier Reyes told Rappler.

For La Viña, if Duterte were to be compelled to testify, she would likely invoke her right against self-incrimination for questions that have criminal implications. But the decision on whether to put Duterte on the trial stand or not still depends on the impeachment court.

“I think that is a decision the Presiding Officer can rule on, but his ruling can be overturned by a majority of the senator-judges. In my view, this is a procedural question the Supreme Court should not weigh in on,” La Viña explained. – Rappler.com