This is an AI-generated summary, which may contain errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
‘His testimony will be purely functional and will not have any significant value. But we can see his character, anger, respect for the judges-senators,’ law professor Tony La Viña says.
MANILA, Philippines – The prosecution, on the second day of the impeachment trial, revealed one of its strongest shots against the Vice President. Sarah Duterte: myself.
“That is my question this afternoon, because the presentation of the witness on the first article that we will present, which is serious threats and acts of incitement, your honor. One of the main witnesses, hostile, although hostile, will be the Vice President,” private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said on Tuesday, July 7.
“And so, if we can ask if it is his intention to come again to the Senate premises, because we are already respectfully informing this honorable court that we will reveal that we will have a written request for his presence in relation to this article about serious threats, your honor,” he added.
Duterte is on probation four articles of indictment: allegations of misappropriation of cryptocurrencies, untold wealth, bribery of public officials, and threats to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family.
The House prosecution began its presentation by highlighting Duterte’s alleged assassination plot against the President.
“In my opinion, his testimony will be purely functional and will not have any important value. But we can see his character, character, respect for the judges-senators, etc.,” attorney general and law professor Tony La Viña told Rappler, adding that “previous behavior” is important to establish structure in a case like this.
Possible problems
The problem for the prosecution, however, is whether Duterte will exercise his constitutional rights.
Defense spokesman Michael Poa reiterated that the 1987 Constitution protects a person against self-incrimination, or having your own words used against you, in court.
“When the accused himself or the accused himself, he cannot (be)-compelled to give evidence against himself (The accused or the accused cannot be forced to explain themselves),” said Poa.
“That is very clear under the Constitution. Of course, there is room to argue here and there. Let’s wait and see (Let’s wait for that) once the move is made. On the side of the prosecution, we will definitely present our position on the matter,” he added.
Cool was what he meant Article III, section 17 of the Constitution, which has a person’s right against self-incrimination.
“Although the prosecution is not a criminal case, there are still serious penalties that make the logic of the ban still applicable…. If the Vice President voluntarily testifies as a witness for the defense, the prosecution will have an opportunity to confront him,” University of the Philippines College of Law Lecturer Oliver Xavier Reyes told Rappler.
For La Viña, if Duterte were forced to testify, he could exercise his right against self-incrimination for questions that have criminal implications. But the decision on whether to put Duterte on trial or not still depends on the impeachment court.
“I think that is a decision that the Chief Officer can decide, but his decision can be overturned by the majority of the judges-senators. In my opinion, this is a procedural question that the Supreme Court should not consider,” La Viña explained. – Rappler.com
