Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense counsel called the prosecution’s plan to subpoena her as a witness in her impeachment trial problematic, saying she cannot be forced to be on the stand.
Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison said the Constitution prohibits this kind of testimonial compulsion, even if an impeachment trial is sui generis and not a purely criminal proceeding.
“When Section 17, Article 3, of our 1987 Constitution put in that guarantee that no person should be compelled to testify against himself or to be a witness, or that there should not be a testimonial compulsion from the accused herself, it did not qualify that provision,” Sison said.
She said this right is absolute and fundamental.
It is important that Filipinos understand and appreciate this right should they face trial or face malicious accusations, she added.
She also said the Constitution and jurisprudence are clear against compelling the accused to give testimony for the prosecution.
This is intended to guard against the recurrence of the inquisition, she said, and stressed the importance of protecting Duterte’s rights.
“While the motives of men are often commendable, we must remember, however, that the preservation of our fundamental liberties does not depend on motives. A suppression of liberty has the same effect whether the suppressor is a reformer or an outlaw,” she said.
Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro, in response, said the prosecution’s plan to call Duterte as a witness is in line with the mandate of transparency and accountability in the Constitution.
“It is important that the impeachment court, including the viewing public, witness how the respondent Vice President answers to all these allegations because this is the spirit behind the provision of the Constitution on transparency and accountability, Your Honor. That is, notwithstanding the Constitutional provision about being on the right against self-incrimination, Your Honor,” Luistro said.
She added that the prosecution is invoking the right of the Filipino people to hear Duterte’s answer to the allegations of grave threats, confidential fund misuse, bribery, and unexplained wealth.