As the Senate Impeachment Court moves forward, recent procedural maneuvers by the House Panel of Prosecutors have ignited a sharp debate among legal scholars, law students, and the public.
Two issues stand out: first, the filing of a 104-paragraph Request for Admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and second, the prosecution’s stated plan to subpoena Vice President Sara Duterte and compel her to testify as an adverse or hostile witness.
While trial strategy often pushes for maximum exposure, procedural tools cannot override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
1. Impeachment is Akin to a Criminal Case
A common point of confusion for law students is classifying impeachment as merely a political or administrative process. However, the text of the 1987 Constitution itself underscores its penal and quasi-criminal nature. Article XI, Section 3(6) explicitly states that “No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
The Constitution deliberately uses the word “convict”—a term rooted in penal law. Although the immediate penalty in an impeachment trial is limited to removal from office and perpetual disqualification from public office rather than imprisonment, the proceedings carry grave, penal-like consequences. Because the respondent stands to suffer the ultimate political capital punishment for an elected official—removal from office—the core constitutional protections afforded to an accused in a criminal case must apply.
2. The Nature of a Request for Admission
A Request for Admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is a pretrial discovery tool designed for ordinary civil suits. Its statutory purpose is to expedite litigation by requiring the opposing party to admit or deny genuine material facts or documents.
Under Section 2, Rule 26, if a party fails to specifically respond within the allotted time, the matters requested are deemed admitted as a matter of law.
In People v. Ang (G.R. No. 231854, October 6, 2020), the Supreme Court En Banc held that Rule 26 Requests for Admission are strictly inapplicable in proceedings of a penal or quasi-criminal nature.
The High Court explained that applying civil discovery mechanisms to an accused creates an impermissible coercive trap: if the accused fails to answer, the allegations are deemed admitted, thereby constructively manufacturing guilt. If the accused responds under oath, they are subjected to mandatory communicative acts under penalty of perjury.
Because impeachment carries penal consequences, attempting to force the Vice President to respond to a Rule 26 Request under the threat of implied admission violates settled jurisprudence.
3. Spousal Privilege Under the Revised Rules on Evidence
A significant portion of the prosecution’s Request for Admission focuses on the personal bank accounts, tax filings, and business entities belonging to the Vice President’s spouse, Atty. Manases Reyes Carpio.
This directly conflicts with Section 24, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence (Marital Disqualification / Spousal Privilege). Under Philippine evidentiary law, neither spouse may be compelled to testify or provide evidence affecting the other during the marriage without the other’s consent.
By demanding that the Vice President make formal, binding judicial admissions regarding her husband’s independent financial records, business partnerships, and tax liabilities, the prosecution is attempting to extract spousal disclosures through indirect procedural compulsion. This violates both the letter and spirit of marital privilege rules designed to protect family unity and privacy.
4. The Right Against Self-Incrimination
The prosecution’s proposal to subpoena Vice President Duterte as an adverse or hostile witness presents an even clearer constitutional barrier.
Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides flatly:
“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
The Pascual and Cabal Precedents
In ordinary civil cases, a plaintiff may call the defendant as an adverse witness under Section 6, Rule 132. However, in proceedings that carry severe penalties or forfeitures, the rule is radically different. In the landmark case of Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners (G.R. No. L-25018, August 2, 1965), the Supreme Court ruled that an administrative proceeding—such as an investigation for malpractice where a professional license is at stake—is penal or quasi-criminal in character.
Therefore, the respondent in that administrative case holds the right to refuse to take the witness stand altogether, akin to an accused in a criminal prosecution, and cannot be compelled to testify or incriminate themselves.
This built directly upon earlier jurisprudence in Cabal v. Kapunan (G.R. No. L-19052, December 29, 1962), where the High Court applied the privilege against self-incrimination to administrative charges of graft, holding that forfeiture proceedings are penal in nature and the respondent cannot be forced to take the stand.
Because the Vice President stands as the respondent facing forfeiture of public office in an impeachment trial, forcing her onto the witness stand as a hostile witness directly violates her constitutional right to remain silent.
5. The Prosecution Must Stand on Its Own Weight
The prosecution’s move to compel the Vice President’s testimony creates a clear strategic dilemma that law students must evaluate carefully.
If the prosecution believes it has already presented a strong case—sufficient to convict Vice President Sara—then there is simply no legal or practical need to call the accused to testify.
Conversely, if the prosecution believes it cannot secure a conviction without forcing the accused to take the stand, it is tacitly admitting that its evidence is inherently weak.
This brings us to a fundamental doctrine in Philippine criminal procedure re-affirmed in People v. Maglinas (G.R. No. 255496, 2022) and earlier precedents like People v. Solis and People v. Masalihit: “The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.”
If the State cannot establish guilt without requiring the accused to testify or fill evidentiary gaps on the witness stand, the case fails by operation of law. The prosecution bears the sole, unshifting burden of proof.
From a trial-strategy perspective, seeking admissions is a legitimate tool in civil litigation to narrow disputed factual issues and expedite proceedings. Similarly, calling key primary sources aims to secure direct testimony on the record. However, trial strategy must always yield to the Constitution.
While the Senate Impeachment Court may adopt the Rules of Court in a suppletory character, suppletory application can never defeat substantive constitutional rights.
The Vice President cannot be compelled to testify against herself, nor can she be forced to respond to civil Requests for Admission under pain of implied guilt. Prosecuting an impeachment case requires independent evidence that stands on its own weight, not procedural shortcuts that infringe upon the Bill of Rights.
*Enrique BUKO dela Cruz, Jr. is the Dean of the College of Law of Baliuag University. He earned his Juris Doctor with honors from UST Manila and his LLM with Distinction from the London Metropolitan University, UK as a Chevening Scholar of the British Council in 2005. He completed an Executive Program on Leadership at the KSG, Harvard University in 2002 and the Future Leaders Program from the National University of Singapore (NUS) Business School in 2022.