Contrasts in impeachment trials

In terms of personalities and conduct of the proceedings, the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte pales in comparison to the impeachment trial of then President Joseph Estrada in 2000 and then Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012.

Recall that the defense team of Estrada was headed by former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa and former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza who, in the legal circles, was described as “the lawyer of last resort” because of his ability to win cases that were considered unwinnable.

In Corona’s case, his defense was led by retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas who was a prosecutor for decades before he was appointed to the judiciary.

Article continues after this advertisement

The three lawyers’ expertise in litigation showed in the way they skillfully cross-examined the witnesses against their client and deftly answered biting questions by some senator-judges.

Their performance reportedly impressed a lot of young Filipinos who watched the proceedings and, in the process, resulted in an uptick in enrolment in law schools.

This is not to denigrate the competence and skill of the Vice President’s lawyers, but, so far, the manner by which they have conducted the cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses leaves much to be desired.

One of the cardinal rules on cross-examination is, a lawyer should not ask a question whose answer he or she is not sure of, particularly if the witness is highly educated or an expert. If the answer turns out to be damaging to the lawyer’s client, it could have a significant adverse impact on the latter’s case.

Article continues after this advertisement

Scenes in movies where an adverse witness breaks down under intense cross-examination and changes his or her testimony to favor the other party do not happen in real life.

When National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag was asked by a defense lawyer if the Vice President can be considered to have betrayed the public trust in light of her high favorable ratings in poll surveys, Matibag replied, in substance, that the popularity of a person does not excuse him or her from accountability for offenses committed.

That answer caught the lawyer flat-footed. It put a moral value on Matibag’s assessment of the death threats made by the VP to President Marcos, the first lady, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Article continues after this advertisement

To the defense lawyer’s credit, he quickly ended his cross-examination and avoided giving Matibag another opportunity to strengthen his testimony. But the harm had been done.

Noticeably, unlike in the Estrada and Corona impeachment trials which were mostly conducted in English, today’s proceedings against the VP have been marked by the extensive use of Filipino language.

Although the prosecution and defense lawyers are fluent in English, there appears to be a conscious effort on their part to reduce its use to the minimum and instead speak in Filipino as much as possible.

This is a welcome development because it enables a wider number of people who watch the proceedings to understand them without grappling with the meaning or purpose of some legal terms in English.

Incidentally, unlike the past impeachment trials which were aired only on TV and radio, this time the proceedings are available for viewing any time in social media, cellphones, and other modern gizmos.

The extensive use of Filipino has unmistakable political undertones. The result of the trial is expected to have serious implications in the 2028 presidential elections, so it makes good political sense for the contending parties (who represent opposing political groups) to conduct the proceedings in a manner that would make their position resonate with the public.

And it would not come as a surprise if some of the lawyers use the impeachment trial platform as a launchpad for political careers.

Finally, the way Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, in his capacity as presiding officer, has been managing the ongoing trial adds to the slow phase of the proceedings.

In the Estrada and Corona trials, which then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile presided over, respectively, they managed the proceedings with minimal protocol or procedural processes.

Within reasonable limits, they allowed the lawyers to perform their assigned tasks with the least interference from the chair and let the proceedings flow smoothly.

But that does not appear to be in the case of Escudero who acts like a stern trial judge. For example, he requires that his prior permission be sought before any lawyer can address his or her counterpart.

In trial courts, judges often let the counsels speak freely and address each other directly to expedite the proceedings.

It looks like Escudero enjoys making rulings and banging the gavel whenever the opportunity presents itself.

At the rate the impeachment trial is plodding along and given the manner its proceedings are being handled, this important political event risks losing public attention and interest.

———————–

raul.palabrica@inquirer.net.