EDITORIAL – Confidentiality vs accountability

As legalese and personal issues of certain senators again threatened to bog down the seventh day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero announced two rulings yesterday that somewhat eased the impatience of the public.

One was the deferment of discussions on such personal matters to the start of the second regular session of the current 20th Congress later this month.

The second, announced after hours of grueling arguments, was the approval of the prosecution’s request to subpoena the bank and tax records of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.

Escudero said the requested records were “prima facie relevant” to the impeachment proceedings, tossing out the argument of the defense that the prosecution was merely engaged in a “fishing expedition.”

The records include covered and suspicious transactions of the couple across multiple bank accounts dating back to the time when Duterte was Davao City vice mayor, which were investigated by the Anti-Money Laundering Council.

It was not a complete victory for the prosecution; several of the entities covered by the request for subpoenas were excluded from the Senate order.

But a memorable statement was given by House prosecutor Chel Diokno of Akbayan, as the defense moved to block the requested subpoenas. Confidentiality, Diokno said, cannot trump accountability in public office.

This is linked to the reminder particularly from legal and constitutional experts, that an impeached official is being tried for fitness for the office rather than criminal liability, although criminal indictments before regular prosecutorial agencies and judicial courts are possible.

Even lawyers watching the Senate proceedings have bemoaned that the trial has become “overjudicialized,” and is crawling along like the pace in regular judicial courts. Several days were spent, for example, arguing over the authenticity of a video that most everyone had already seen, as well as the difference between a warning and a grave threat, despite legal definitions provided in the Revised Penal Code and sheer common sense.

Yesterday’s proceedings, although still marked with extraneous motions and statements, moved a bit faster and offered a substantive output after three hours.

But there’s still a wide room for improvement, and for sufficient focus on the main issue: is Sara Duterte fit to remain as Vice President?