Led by Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio, the prosecutors said Estrada and his lawyers could no longer validly claim denial of due process because they have had almost three years to prepare and present their case since the last government witness testified in April 2003.
"They are simply dragging (out) the proceedings," the prosecutors said.
"More than adequate opportunity had been given them: Almost three years now, from the time the prosecution presented its last witness in April 2003. Due process had been very well kept and preserved."
However, retired Manila fiscal Jose Flaminiano, one of Estrada’s lawyers, said the defense panel may still call other witnesses to the stand after Estrada has testified.
In response, prosecutors asked the anti-graft court to limit the defense to the last two witnesses whom former senator Rene Saguisag, another Estrada lawyer, had committed to present in court.
Prosecutors argued that defense claims of Estrada’s illegal ouster from the presidency and his premature loss of immunity were no longer justified.
Subpoenas issued to persons whom Estrada’s lawyers wish to call to testify on the issue should now be quashed, they added.
Prosecutors said apart from the Supreme Court rulings on Estrada vs. Desierto and Estrada vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, both of which upheld President Arroyo’s assumption to power in January 2001, the two houses of Congress also passed separate resolutions recognizing the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration.
The two rulings and the acts of Congress now render further testimony on the subject of Estrada’s immunity irrelevant and immaterial, they added.
Prosecutors said regardless of the defense’s argument that Estrada went on temporary leave from the presidency, it still does not bar his prosecution as immunity does not extend to a "non-sitting president."
Prosecutors said they objected to defense accusations that government witnesses Clarissa Ocampo and Manuel Curato were bribed to testify against Estrada.
The insinuations of bribery are "untrue, unfair and atrocious" since Ocampo and Curato testified at great risk to themselves and their family before the Senate Impeachment Court at a time when Estrada was still wielding the power and influence of his presidency, they added.
However, the defense said it intends to pursue its claim of "packages of incentives" received by the two in exchange for their testimonies. — Mike Frialde