The House prosecution team on Monday offered to enter into stipulations with Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s defense panel that could remove the need to present up to 20 witnesses in her impeachment trial, as prosecutors seek to shorten proceedings involving alleged unexplained wealth.
The proposal centers on subpoenaed bank records that prosecutors are presenting in connection with allegations of unexplained wealth. The prosecution said an agreement could remove the need to call as many as 20 witnesses who would only testify on the authenticity and existence of the documents.
House prosecutor Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno said the request for admission was intended to identify facts that are not genuinely disputed and allow the court to focus on the issues that require further examination.
‘We filed the request for admission to make the trial more organized and faster. Our only goal is to determine what is truly disputed without using the court’s time on matters that can simply be acknowledged,’ Diokno told the Senate Impeachment Court.
The prosecution offered to withdraw its request if Duterte’s defense agrees to stipulate on three points: that the bank records exist, that the documents were submitted by the identified banks pursuant to subpoenas issued by the impeachment court, and that the records are authentic copies maintained and produced by those institutions.
‘That is all that is being asked, Your Honors. We will withdraw our request for admission if the respondent agrees to this,’ Diokno said.
Diokno emphasized that the proposed stipulations would not require Duterte to admit liability, accept the prosecution’s interpretation of the transactions, or concede that the records prove wrongdoing.
‘The respondent would remain free to challenge the relevance, meaning, evidentiary value, and legal effect of the records,’ he said.
According to Diokno, agreeing to the stipulations could allow the prosecution to remove the need for testimony from at least 10 to 20 witnesses who would otherwise discuss the same foundational matters.
Duterte’s defense team, however, maintained that it could not immediately agree to the proposal. Lead counsel Shiela Sison said additional bank documents were still being marked and that the defense needed more time to examine the records.
The defense also argued that requiring Duterte to respond to the request for admission could affect her constitutional right against self-incrimination. It maintained that impeachment proceedings do not automatically follow the same procedures as ordinary civil cases.
Diokno rejected the argument that the request should be completely dismissed, saying the prosecution was not asking Duterte to confess to any offense.
‘We are not asking her to admit any wrongdoing or responsibility. We are only asking for recognition of documents submitted by the banks themselves pursuant to the subpoena issued by this court,’ Diokno said.
The prosecutor also pointed out that Duterte’s defense had not claimed that the bank records were fake or fabricated.
‘To be clear, the respondent has not claimed that these records are fake or fabricated. That is why we are saying the authenticity of the bank documents is not genuinely disputed,’ Diokno said.
He added that the records came directly from financial institutions and did not pass through the prosecution before being submitted to the court.
‘The documents were submitted by established banks that understand the importance of this case and the reputation attached to the records they provide,’ Diokno said.
Presiding Officer Sen. Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero directed the prosecution to submit the proposed stipulations in writing so the defense could formally respond.
Escudero said the impeachment court would still resolve the legal dispute over the request for admission even if both sides eventually reach an agreement.
Meanwhile, Davao City Mayor Sebastian ‘Baste’ Duterte is scheduled to testify in the impeachment trial after requesting additional time to prepare documents covered by a subpoena.
Escudero said Mayor Duterte asked to appear on Tuesday and Wednesday instead of Monday because he needed time to gather, organize, authenticate, and reproduce the requested documents.
‘The Presiding Officer grants the request of Mayor Duterte to appear tomorrow [Tuesday] and Wednesday. This is already covered by the subpoena issued, so there is no need for another subpoena,’ Escudero ruled.
The prosecution is expected to question Mayor Duterte regarding his sister’s declared business interests and government transactions in Davao City that prosecutors say may be relevant to their allegations involving unexplained wealth.
The prosecution also presented testimony from Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) Division Chief Rendell Sopeña regarding government contracts awarded to GenCorp Industries Inc.
Sopeña told the Senate impeachment court that 11 of 15 contracts awarded by the Davao City government to GenCorp were processed through negotiated small-value procurement rather than public bidding.
He estimated that the 11 contracts had a combined value of around P7 million to P8 million, while the total value of the 15 Davao City awards was about P34.216 million.
Sopeña clarified that his testimony was limited to information contained in the PhilGEPS system and did not determine whether any procurement transaction was unlawful.
He explained that PhilGEPS records show procurement information submitted by government agencies but do not independently determine whether prices were reasonable or whether all legal requirements were followed.
Lead prosecutor Atty. Gerville ‘Jinky Bitrics’ Luistro argued that GenCorp’s participation in Davao City procurement raised conflict-of-interest concerns because Duterte had declared an interest in the company while her brother was serving as Davao City mayor.
Luistro said the prosecution’s position was based on the conflict-of-interest provision under Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution, while acknowledging that procurement laws do not explicitly describe every possible scenario.
Senator-judge Raffy Tulfo questioned whether GenCorp could participate in Davao City procurement given Duterte’s declared ownership interest and her brother’s position as city mayor.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian also asked whether PhilGEPS records showed the number of bidders, bid prices, and conflict-of-interest declarations. Sopeña said those details were not automatically reflected in the system unless uploaded by the procuring entity.
Constitutional right against self-incrimination
Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison on Monday argued that the constitutional right against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent are absolute, and that these protections must be upheld, as prosecution panel attempts to summon or subpoena Vice President Duterte.
Sison invoked the 1969 landmark Supreme Court ruling in Pascual Jr. vs Board of Medical Examiners to assert that Duterte cannot be compelled to take the witness stand or testify against herself during her Senate impeachment trial.
‘The admission is akin to testimony. Kaya nga may tinawag na admission. At kung ano ang garantiya ng Konstitusyon natin ay ipinagbabawal ang compulsion sa isang respondent o akusado na mag-testify against himself, dapat ding pagbawalan ‘yung pagtatangka na kumuha ng tinatawag na admission,’ Sison said.
House prosecutor and Akbayan party-list Rep. Jose Manuel ‘Chel’ Diokno asserts that the timing for invoking rights against self-incrimination should be when specific questions are propounded to a witness, rather than as a blanket objection to a request for documents.
The Senate sitting as the impeachment court is tackling Article II on the alleged unexplained wealth of Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases ‘Mans’ Carpio.
Diokno told the impeachment court that the prosecution is willing to withdraw its request for admission of Duterte’s bank records if the defense agrees to stipulations on three matters: the bank records exists, were produced by the said banks pursuant to the subpoenas identified by the impeachment court, and they are genuine and authentic copies of records maintained by the said banks.
Diokno stressed that the stipulations would not require the vice president to admit liability, the accuracy and truth of every entry in the documents, or the prosecution’s interpretation of any transaction in the documents.
Sison also stated that the Constitutional guarantee protects as well as the right to silence.
‘As far back as 1905, we had the occasion to declare the accused has a perfect right to remain silent and his silence cannot be used as a presumption of his guilt,’ she added, emphasizing that the constitutional right against self-incrimination should apply with even greater force in an impeachment proceedings, which she described as ‘highly penal in character.’
Sison said the defense also could not agree on what the prosecution proposed, which is the stipulations immediately since additional documents were still being marked.
‘Isa pa po na nakikita naming concern dito ay hindi pa nga nasisimulan ang pagmamarka ng mga dokumento na galing sa bangko today,’ Sison said, adding that they were informed that more documents are set for marking on Monday.
Sison also argued that Duterte and the defense team has not been given enough time to review the said documents.
‘Ibig sabihin, wala ring sapat na panahon para makita ng respondent at ng kanyang mga abogado ang mga dokumento na ito and there will be no basis for any stipulation today or even tomorrow, or even on Wednesday,’ Sison explained.
‘If we will have a stipulation, our suggestion is that the proposal form stipulation be made at the appropriate time,’ she said, as she proposed that any stipulation of the documents be taken up later when the prosecution formally offers its testimonial evidence accompanying the documentary evidence.
Later, she said the lead defense will no longer quibble on the matter after Diokno withdrew the request for admission in exchange for stipulation.
‘We will no longer quibble with the arguments profounded today by the Honorable Diokno considering also the statement that had been made in respect of the withdrawal of the request for admission in exchange for stipulation,’ she added.
The court then instructed the parties to submit their arguments in writing.
Presiding officer Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero confirmed they will issue a formal ruling on the motion within the week to guide future proceedings in the trial.