MANILA, Philippines — Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero on Wednesday urged both counsels not to let the "generational divide" heighten the situation during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Escudero issued the call as tensions flared between House of Representatives' private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense counsel Kristine Ferrer during the cross-examination of witness Xylene Mae del Campo on the 15th day of the impeachment trial.
The exchange began after Kapunan objected to Ferrer’s repeated request for the witness to answer “yes or no,” arguing that not all questions can be answered that way and that misleading questions are not allowed even during cross-examination.
Ferrer maintained that such questions are allowed.
"Counsels, please. Let’s not allow the generational divide or seeming generational divide to increase tension in the courtroom. Let's keep it a notch lower," Escudero said.
Kapunan then quipped, “Your Honor, please. I am preventing myself from giving her a spanking, your Honor. That is what I would have done in the generational divide,” drawing laughter inside the impeachment court.
Ferrer later said she had high respect for Kapunan and even considered her one of her idols.
Only Vice President Sara Duterte can fully explain why confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education were allegedly funneled by designated disbursing officers to third parties despite rules restricting such transfers, a member of the House prosecution panel said.
“I think no one else can explain that but the Vice President,” prosecution counsel and spokesman Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said in Filipino as Day 14 of the impeachment trial of Duterte wrapped up last Tuesday.
OVP Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta and former DepEd SDO Edward Fajarda testified during a House investigation that confidential funds were turned over to the vice president’s security officers instead of being personally disbursed by them.
Acosta particularly said she transferred the cash advance for the confidential funds to then-head of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group (VPSPG) Col. Raymund Lachica upon Duterte’s directive.
Fajarda also admitted that he gave the cash advance for DepEd’s confidential funds to Col. Dennis Nolasco, one of Duterte’s security aides.
Tolosa said the testimony indicated that the transfer of responsibility violated rules governing cash advances for confidential funds.
“We want to hear directly from the Vice President what her explanation is regarding this matter—especially since it is clear, and we heard it ourselves, that she was the one who ordered this, which constitutes a direct violation of the joint circular,” Tolosa said.
House prosecutor and Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co, meanwhile, noted that the SDOs exercised authority delegated by the heads of their respective agencies.
“At the end of the day, their authority as SDO was delegated. The person who delegated it was the head of the agency, VP Sara Duterte,” she said.
The lawmaker further asserted that accountability does not end with the SDOs because Duterte approved and signed documents related to the utilization and liquidation of the confidential funds.
"At the end of the day, VP has a level of accountability for the sole reason that he signed the documents that makes this delegation, makes these disbursements, allowed this to happen," Co said.
Tolosa also warned of perjury risks should witnesses in the impeachment trial reverse or recant statements they previously made under oath.
Acosta and Fajarda, whom prosecutors tagged as “hostile witnesses,” gave sworn accounts before a House inquiry into the disbursement of confidential funds, including how money under their custody was handed to the vice president’s security officers.
“When a witness—especially one who has already given a statement under oath—is called to testify again, placed under oath once more, and asked about the same matters, only to provide a different answer, could be held liable for perjury or, for example, false testimony,” Tolosa said in English and Filipino following the adjournment of the Senate impeachment court’s proceedings last Tuesday.
He further noted that materially different testimonies could be challenged using a prior inconsistent statement, potentially weakening a witness’ credibility.
