Early tensions emerge ahead of Sara Duterte impeachment trial | Rep. Gerville Luistro | On Point

[00:00:03]Good evening. I'm Pinky Webb. Tonight, we ask the questions, we tackle the issues, we clarify matters, and we get on point.

[00:00:24]The impeachment trial of Vice President Sarah Duterte is set to begin on July 6, but political tensions are already running high. During Thursday's pre-conference trial, tempers reportedly flared between the prosecution and defense teams. what really happened behind the scenes and how could these early clashes impact the course of the trial moving forward. Let's get on point with House lead prosecutor Bataka's second district representative Jerville Luistra. Congresswoman again thank you for your time.

[00:01:00]Thank you Pinky and good evening viewers.

[00:01:08]What happened Thursday is what we call the pre-trial conference or it's a pre-trial meeting and it was close to media jinky >> that is correct and I think the reason is because very tedious itong process and uh a little boring marking of every piece of document no which the public may not find interesting but this is really very significant pinky and if I may share it with our countrymen no pre-trial conference address initial matters to be very specific proposed stipulation of facts admit during the trial admissions considered established facts.

[00:02:21]No need to prove it during the trial.

[00:02:23]No. Second submission names of witnesses. The purpose is to be able to determine also the number of trial dates.

[00:02:35]prosecution on one hand at defense on the other hand and another important thing is of course the marking of documents very time consuming pre-trial conference no uh to summarize Pinky the stipulation of facts the issues for resolution names of witnesses and even the number of proposed trial dates for both parties submitted impeachment court marking of exhibits. Again, it's because of the voluminous documents that we have in support particularly of the article on unexplained wealth and the confidential fund. And that is why impeachment court this Monday marking of our documents hopefully we will just be waiting for the pre-trial order pre-trial order. It will uh embody everything that happened agreed on during pre-trial conference and this will be binding to both parties including the impeachment court during the entire trial.

[00:04:01]>> So what we're expecting to happen is another pre-trial conference on Monday hopefully after that pre-trial order.

[00:04:13]Well, I'm not so sure by issue pre-trial order. Most likely, Pinky, this will be issued naang without convening of the impeachment court. No.

[00:04:27]Understanding you start n trial now July 6 will be presentation of evidence now.

[00:04:34]No. So immediately after termination of pre-trial conference, we can anticipate now the issuance of pre-trial order. But I heard Kongjinki there is this June 25 submission or smons.

[00:04:50]That's what I heard during the report yesterday.

[00:04:54]>> It is actually June 22 that is Monday.

[00:04:57]No para written manifestations parties like the prosecution and the defense. No, for exampifestations which the parties may wish to file.

[00:05:31]>> Got it. Okay. So, you were saying in the beginning, I wanted to circle back to that.

[00:05:42]accessible jinky tension. Can you tell us more about that?

[00:05:51]It is better described by disagreement rather than tension. No, we have to understand Pinky. This is an adversarial proceeding. No, the position of the prosecution is completely opposite to the position of the defense and therefore anticipated you disagreements not necessarily tensions in the proceeding. As a matter of fact during the trial, if the position of the prosecution in the defense is uniform, no adversarial, we are alleging commission of offenses while the other one is claiming innocence of the respondent. Totally opposite. And this disagreement will definitely extend up to the conclusion of our impeachment trial.

[00:06:49]>> Did it happen, Congresswoman that the disagreements bosses?

[00:06:56]>> Well, parties in explaining their point and again that is very natural in all adversarial proceedings. No. And that was between who? Because um tweet I think that it was between you and attorney Sheila Huba.

[00:07:22]>> No, not necessarily. No, I would charge the exchange of arguments as uh merely maintaining our respective positions.

[00:07:33]Mine for the prosecution and hers for the defense. No, but I do not describe it as tension. It is merely disagreement and opposite position and keeping our respective grounds a prosecution defense >> which you were saying is regular ordinary or normal uh in an adversarial proceeding. Congresswoman Jenki wanted to I I know that there was a lot that was discussed and obviously two opposing themes in the huba but one one thing I wanted to find out was that when there were evidence marking of evidence and stipulation of facts did it come out over and over again if it did that the defense is still claiming there is a petition before the Supreme Court that does not recognize what happened during the house justice this committee that you headed. Did that come out uh a number of times during the conference pre-trial conference yesterday?

[00:08:35]actually pinky wala discussion on that because as a matter of fact even assuming manifestation that is not proper during the pre-trial conference no as a matter of fact is supreme court premature discuss during PTC and even if you try to raise it during the trial proper Because that is a constitutional question that belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court and we have to understand that the Senate is not an appellet court of the house. Whatever happened in the house is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the house.

[00:09:25]>> Let me rephrase the question then.

[00:09:27]During the stipulation of facts, during the submission of the names of witnesses, was there a time there there rather that the defense would say that um that that is that's something we're opposing because of the mere fact that we did not recognize uh there was an abuse uh during the House Justice Committee hearing on the impeachment case against Vice President Sarah Duterte. I was just thinking about that House Justice Committee >> without dwelling into the details of what happened during the PTC because I hope you understand we're bound by the prohibition already but that issue is not a proper subject of the PTC or pre-trial conference no strictly discussion during PTC are only with respect to the agenda mentioned in the notice. is and even assuming that we will be going beyond the agenda. It is premature to discuss issues like that erase during the trial proper because that is a constitutional issue supreme court and agree resolve it is beyond the jurisdiction of the impeachment court. Let's talk about the submission of names of witnesses. Um, Congresswoman, how many witnesses are there for the the prosecution and how many witnesses are there for the defense? And let me follow up already if you don't mind. Are surprise witnesses allowed? Go ahead, ma'am.

[00:11:09]>> Well, as to the number, let me make reference to the prior pronouncement.

[00:11:13]No, I said before that it's 57. as to the actual numbers that we have during the pre-trial conference. I cannot divulge that anymore. We are bound by the prohibition. And then uh about the surprise witness, about the surprise witness, it is not actually surprise in the sense that you're supposed to make a reservation. No reserve. Then you cannot present him as well during the trial. rules as a general rule witnesses indicate pre-trial brief including the documents or exhibits. No, if you don't disclose them in the pre-trial brief as a general rule, you cannot present them during the trial. However, there is an exception witness and there is an issue of safety and security reservation and then you will just disclose it to the impeachment court 3 days before his presentation. No documents available document are not yet within the knowledge of the parties reservation and within 3 days not later than 3 days before presentation court during the trial. In other words, congresswoman surprise witness basta disclosed three days before and additional documents as long as disclosed three days before. Did I get that right ma'am?

[00:12:48]>> I don't consider that surprise as a matter of fact there is a requirement.

[00:13:01]So I don't consider that as a surprise witness perhaps reserve witness more accurate term >> reserve reserve witnesses and uh I guess that goes the same for for the documents. Do you have these reserve witnesses congresswoman?

[00:13:19]>> Well I can confirm me prosecution but we cannot of course disclose the names.

[00:13:26]>> H how many?

[00:13:28]I I cannot recall no and I think I am no longer at liberty to disclose then reservation. Okay. What I am certain reservation for witnesses reservation for documents.

[00:13:45]>> I see. All right. Regarding documents though, now that you were talking about it, wasn't it Congressman Terry Leidon who also said that you have additional evidence or that you may bring out regarding the issue of supposed um guns that the vice president and um attorney Man Scario supposedly have numbering, if I'm not mistaken, 5050 that were supposedly not included in the sal is this something you can confirm congresswoman jinki >> I'm afraid pinky that that dwells into the merits of the case already no and I'm not at liberty anymore since the start MPTC to confirm the prior pronouncement of congressman Terry Riddleon but the list I can share to ourabayan is evidence including reservations I submit prosecution impeachment Right.

[00:14:46]>> Is it true though that I don't know if this is something you can also respond to that you have a witness that will corroborate Ramil Madriyaga's testimony?

[00:14:59]>> Well, uh I can say Pinky submitted names witnesses including our reservations for those whose names or identity are not yet disclosed. Let me just explain to the public.

[00:15:15]rules may prohibition, prosecution, defense, um, senator, judges, and even witnesses from commenting on the merits, witnesses, and even on the pieces of evidence are part of the merits of the case. No, >> got it. We'll be taking a very short break. We'll continue our discussion with House lead prosecutor Representative Jerville Jeni Luistro when we return. Stay tuned. This is on point.

[00:16:21]I'm a public health expert continue to grow so >> here in Altadino the real estate market.

[00:16:27]We hope you have a wonderful magical >> status agenda reporting from Houston, Texas. Billionaria News Channel.

[00:16:33]>> From the United States to Canada's biggest stories from business and politics to stories shaping communities across North America. BNC is on the ground bringing stories that matter.

[00:16:46]Wherever news happen, we are everywhere.

[00:16:53]Welcome back. Still with us, House lead prosecutor, Representative Gerville Jinky Louro. Congresswoman, because in the past it was mentioned that there were more or less 59 witnesses for the prosecution. It makes one wonder uh going back to previous impeachment cases. Um is 57 a lot because right now it seems Because uh because for the prosecution we are conscious about the rule pre-trial brief there will be challenges in presenting them because the rule is pre-trial brief so that they may be allowed to be presented during the trial. No. So from the prosecution side it was our intention to include But then again during the trial we can decide man who among those 57 presentation because that that falls under the exclusive purview of the prosecution to decide on the manner of presentation of our evidence.

[00:18:04]>> In other words, you'd rather bring it up already during the pre-trial conference, the PTC, so that there will be no questions during the trial if indeed you want to bring in someone. So you've somehow laid already the groundwork or even the names or identities of uh the witnesses in terms of trial dates. Is there what can you share about that? How are you foreseeing how long the duration of the trial would be?

[00:18:33]>> Pinky no when I was asked I think it will last until September October or November but depending uh discretion on court because it will be the impeachment court who will decide as to the number of trial dates which will be given to the prosecution and the number of trial dates which will be given to the defense. No. So 44C pinky I perhaps we need to decide witnesses represent to be able to contain ourselves the prosecution with respect to the number of days that will be given to us. Congresswoman, you said it's up to the impeachment court to give the trial dates for the prosecution and the defense. Are we supposed to be expecting an even number uh that is given to the prosecution and that is given to the defense?

[00:19:28]>> Well, I cannot commend to that. No, cuz I don't know really if it will be exact or equal number of trial dates or should should they are they going to make it proportionate to the amount of evidence to be presented? It really falls within the exclusive judgment of the impeachment court. Siguro, let's wait and see pronouncement impeachment court on this.

[00:19:55]>> But July 6 certainly confirmed there could there will be no other date to start the trial but July 6. I guess the question is July 6. I think we are certain already about July 6.

[00:20:11]Pronouncements Senate President about starting on July 6 for the presentation of evidence or trial proper. No. And even during PTC bag, this is not part of our formal proceedings on PTC. It was mentioned in passing also by by the clerk of court that July 6 will be the start of the trial. So for us we are we are settled already on July 6 that the presentation of evidence will commence.

[00:20:43]>> Can you give us a glimpse on what we can expect on the first day of the trial on July 6? Well, what I understand based on the past impeachment processes no past impeachment trial opening statement on both parties prosecution first and then uh and then the defense tapos preliminary discussions sometimes including constitutional questions sometimes including procedural questions depending on which will be allowed by the Presiding officer. No.

[00:21:20]And after that we should proceed now in the presentation of evidence prosecution after direct examination defense. No. And after the conclusion of the presentation of evidence of the prosecution defense.

[00:21:42]No. So I'm articles of impeachment I divided into four articles. No. So what I want to share to the public the order of presentation in the articles of impeachment will not necessarily be the order of our presentation during the trial. We are we are still deciding on that because it falls within our exclusive judgment also among the four articles. So this order of presentation should be submitted also to the clerk of court so that it will become part of the pre-trial order.

[00:22:30]pre-trial order. We're bound to follow that during the trial proper.

[00:22:34]>> And strategically, of course, amongst yourselves, you're going to have to think which article of impeachment should be first, should be second, should be third, and should be fourth.

[00:22:43]Um whether whichever article would be the strongest or so that has not been decided upon by the panel of prosecutors. All right.

[00:22:55]Moving forward, the 16 senators needed to convict. Of course, this is being talked about and being discussed. We understand what is written in the constitution that 2/3 of all the members of all the members of the Senate will be needed to convict. So if that is 24, that gives a number of 16. But of course, Senator Bau is in hiding.

[00:23:19]Senator Jingo is suspended for 90 days.

[00:23:23]Delawa they're not around um they're not around but the constitution says 2/3 of all members it's a question I had asked earlier already but in practical terms when the constitution says twothirds of all members of the senate does it mean twothirds of all members of the senate participating present around or otherwise >> well that This is why Pinky the doctrine in the Avelino versus Quenko case is very much significant.

[00:24:03]Although this is quite old 1949 constitutional pronouncement I only those senators who are within the coercive power of the institution will be counted for the purpose of determining the baseline.

[00:24:23]>> But I would like to add something to that. Pinkino.

[00:24:31]Why do we have senators?

[00:24:33]It is for the purpose of representing the interest of the Filipino people not only during legislative sessions but also during impeachment trial. No representatives.

[00:24:48]In the same way that the members of the house are representative also of our beloved countrymen. Now the question is if our senator is detained, if our senator is in hiding, are they truly representing the interests of the people? I think the answer is no. And having said that, I am aligned I agree to the doctrine in Abelino versus Quenko consider in counting the baseline are those within the coercive power of the institution. Having said so in our instant case the baseline should be 22 and 2/3 must be taken from 22.

[00:25:33]Thirdly, Pinky. No, if we will analyze the verbatim provision of the constitution, they said 2/3 of all the members of the senate when they could have used 24 of the senate >> because 1987 constitution by no 24 senators they could have said 2/3 of 24 if that was the intention. So for me the reason why the word all was used is to give latitude >> to the members of the legislative in interpreting depending on the demands of the circumstances. No sabi the law must be evolving so that it could respond to the demands of the present time. Cuz if you will interpret it strictly, it will not serve its purpose in resolving the issues that the country are encountering. No, >> the law is evolving, the constitution is evolving and therefore it must be interpreted in such a way that it will be able to respond to resolve the issues of the present time.

[00:26:53]Congresswoman, senator judges are supposed to be around to be able to fulfill their mandate as senator judges being um well obviously part of the Senate because that is their other constitutional duty aside from legislative work. I guess what I want to find out is how can one fairly accurately decide on acquitting or confirming the the the impeachment if you're just simply not around if you're not in court.

[00:27:29]>> Well, I agree with you. No, it is really significant, highly necessary now present senator judge. It is important that he should witness not only the giving of testimony but also the demeanor of this witnesses because that is material in resolving whether the witness is telling the truth or otherwise. No. And in addition to that pinky constitutional duty to and that is why they really need to be present. Was it discussed during the pre-trial conference?

[00:28:08]>> Well, it was not discussed. No. And I think even if we raise it during the Senate or the trial before the impeachment court similar to the issue on issue leadership it's be it's because when we talk about numbers when we talk about when we talk about threshold politicize discussion no and that This is why I wish to give recognition also to the contrary view personal opinion. Okay. It does not reflect the opinion or the position of the prosecution. That is my personal position only.

[00:28:55]>> Congresswoman, last question. We have to go. Is this something is this is this a matter that the prosecution team needs to bring up before the Supreme Court?

[00:29:05]Well, the problem Pinky is I think until and unless decide senator judge whether conviction or acquittal there is no actual case or controversy to consider.

[00:29:20]>> Got it. No requirement that for purposes of petition actual case or controversy academic correct that is correct. No.

[00:29:35]>> Okay. House le prosecutor representative Jerville Jinky Luis.

[00:29:42]>> Thank you Pinky. Good evening pohat viewers and followers. Thank you Pinky.

[00:29:46]>> Happy weekend. That's on point. Join us again on Monday, 7:30 p.m. here on BNC, the Billionataria News Channel. I'm Pinky Webb. Thank you for watching.