VICE President Sara Z. Duterte cannot invoke her constitutional right against self-incrimination as a blanket reason to refuse taking the witness stand in her impeachment trial, House prosecutors said, arguing that the privilege must be exercised on a question-by-question basis.
The prosecution made the statement after reserving its right to present Duterte as a witness before the Senate Impeachment Court once it completes the presentation of evidence on all four Articles of Impeachment.
House prosecution spokesperson and counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. explained that the absolute protection against being compelled to testify generally applies to individuals facing criminal charges. However, in other proceedings, an opposing party may be called as a witness and may only invoke the right against self-incrimination when a specific question could expose them to criminal liability.
‘You cannot say, ‘I will not take the stand at all because I have the right against self-incrimination.’ It has to be on a per-question basis,’ Tolosa said.
He added that the Impeachment Court would determine whether a particular question could actually incriminate Duterte before allowing her to refuse answering.
Tolosa stressed that Duterte is not an accused in a criminal case but a respondent in an impeachment proceeding, which is a constitutional process aimed at determining whether a public official should remain in office and be disqualified from holding future public positions.
‘She’s not an accused here. She’s a respondent. This is not a criminal case. It’s an impeachment proceeding,’ Tolosa said.
Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores, a member of the prosecution panel, agreed that Duterte may invoke the protection depending on the nature of the questions asked but cannot automatically refuse to testify altogether.
Flores explained that questions involving alleged personal use of confidential funds could potentially raise self-incrimination concerns. However, factual questions, such as whether Duterte instructed a special disbursing officer to withdraw funds, may not necessarily require invoking the privilege.
The prosecution reserved the possibility of calling Duterte after completing its additional witness presentation regarding allegations involving the misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds. However, it has not yet filed a formal request asking the Impeachment Court to issue a subpoena for her appearance.
Tolosa said the reservation was made to preserve the prosecution’s ability to question Duterte regarding the confidential funds allegations and the other Articles of Impeachment.
Duterte’s defense team earlier argued that the Constitution prevents prosecutors from compelling an impeachment respondent to testify. The defense said it would oppose any attempt to subpoena her.
Tolosa acknowledged that the Senate impeachment court would ultimately decide how the constitutional protection applies to Duterte, noting that impeachment proceedings are unique and different from ordinary criminal trials.
Strength of evidence
PROSECUTORS maintained that their case against Duterte will depend on the strength of their evidence rather than the number of votes needed for conviction.