PRESIDING SENATOR-JUDGE ESCUDERO:
(0:00:00) Senator-Judge Cayetano.
SENATOR-JUDGE ALAN PETER CAYETANO:
(0:00:05) Mr. Presiding Officer. I agree with you both and there’s a solution to that. Let me start by I agree with the defense. Actually, I was gonna stand up yesterday but with all due respect to a good lawyer, Atty. Capunan, and to the fact that my seatmate, Senator Migz, was very proud of her saying that she’s his ninang I did not stand up anymore.
(0:00:35) The problem with explaining why you’re withdrawing is actually you are feeding to the court something they did not testify to and then something the defense cannot object to. And if it is a proffer or a tender, it is clear to everyone. Inexclude yun, kaya ko nga lang nilalagay.
(0:00:59) But tama naman si presiding officer, it’s akin, it’s not the same. But dun kasi sa tender nag-ruling. So it’s very clear to us it’s unacceptable. So after the very eloquent manifestation of Atty. Capunan yesterday, if I was a layman, I would think what you said whether it was the agent John Mark…
(0:01:32) Whether it was the second witness na NBI was true. Kasi parang may summation.
The same thing with you, the very able lead prosecutor and chairperson of the House Committee on Justice. Having said that, I agree with you, this is an impeachment court, people need have to know why. But I think we have been very lenient. No one except the spokesperson have spoken about subjudicial rule, so you can actually explain it in the presscon afterwards.
(0:02:03) If I may… Because nga, I was also observing yesterday and I was saying, kung ako yung defense, dadagdagan ko na yung witness ngayon at every time i-withdraw, may chance akong i-explain bakit wini-withdraw then reinforce kung ano yung sinabi nung before. So I understand you completely, ma’am. People have to understand why it is not a sign of weakness, in fact in your ano, it is a sign that you’ve achieved your position, but we can do that in the presscon and other forums.
(2:32) But if you do it kasi here, walang chance yung prosecution to rebut that. Or if they do, it’s one rebutting the other rather than the witness standing. So if I may offer that solution, Mr. Presiding Officer.
PRESIDING SENATOR-JUDGE ESCUDERO:
(0:02:46) As ruled by the presiding officer, henceforth, that will no longer be allowed. Senator Pangilinan, Senator-Judge Pangilinan, before Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano.
SENATOR-JUDGE PANGILINAN:
(0:02:56) Yes, just a quick manifestation. I was actually listening to the ruling of the Presiding Officer and initially I thought he would rule that the defense would likewise be given the opportunity to speak up at some point when they likewise have the opportunity to withdraw witnesses.
(3:21) I would like to think, Mr. Presiding Officer, that would have been the better approach because this is an impeachment court. We are not bound by technical rules unlike court proceedings where lawyers are familiar and would really want to make it as orderly and as technical as possible.
(0:03:48) But again, I will yield to the ruling of the chair. But just a reminder to everyone that technical rules of evidence does not apply strictly in impeachment court proceedings. Precisely because nakikinig ang taong bayan, pagka technical masyado, sa halip na lumalabas ang bawat punto, hindi ko sinasabing hindi dapat magsalita ang defense.
(0:04:23) In fact, yan ang original or initial suggestion at minumungkahi ng ating presiding officer na kung gusto magsalita ng defense rin para tapatan yung nabanggit ng prosecution, mas maganda sana. But I will yield. I just wanted that manifested and I will yield to the ruling of the chair.
PRESIDING SENATOR-JUDGE ESCUDERO:
(4:43) We thank the good gentleman for his understanding and magnanimity. Given that counsel for respondent did not want the same benefit, it also saves on the court time. As pointed out by Senator-Judge Alan, these words can be best expressed outside this court so we can manage the court’s time better given that both parties have their respective spokespersons to discuss these matters.
