House prosecutors defend statements on impeachment

MANILA, Philippines — Members of the House prosecution panel have maintained that their statements on the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte were not about the merits of the case, but merely on procedure and summary of the proceedings. 

Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon and counsel for the prosecution Benjamin Tolosa Jr. made this assertion as they explained to the Senate impeachment court why they should not be sanctioned for violation of the sub judice rule which barred parties from commenting on the merits of the case.

In his verified answer to the impeachment court’s show cause order, Ridon said his statements only meant to keep the public informed of the status and progress of the proceedings, adding that he has always understood the distinction between reports on what transpired during proceedings, explaining procedural developments and progress of the prosecution.

“In making these statements, Rep. Ridon never intended to prejudge the case, influence the senator-judges, substitute public discussion for the evidence and arguments properly presented before the honorable court or diminish the authority of the honorable court to determine the merits of the impeachment case,” he said.

For his part, Tolosa said his statements either concerned procedural matters or merely recounted matters already placed on record fairly and accurately, in good faith and without editorial comment. 

He asserted that his statements, when considered in its complete context, did not evaluate a disputed fact, the credibility of a witness, the relevance, weight or sufficiency of evidence. 

“Accordingly, there is no basis for citing the undersigned counsel for violation of Rule 18,” Tolosa said. 

He further contended that his statements did not state that the prosecution’s evidence was already sufficient to warrant the Vice President’s conviction nor did he urge the Senate impeachment court to convict Duterte.

“The undersigned counsel did not assess the credibility, weight or sufficiency of those statements and admissions, nor did he urge this honorable impeachment court to draw any particular conclusion from it. Instead, it was merely made to explain the prosecution’s decision to reserve its right to call Respondent ,” Tolosa said.