HOUSE prosecutors in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte want to open a sealed box containing her tax records, as well as those of her husband Manases Carpio and their companies, Rep. Leila de Lima said on Wednesday.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) submitted the sealed box to the House Committee on Justice in response to a subpoena, but members of the panel eventually voted 38-6 to keep the box sealed due to privacy concerns. The majority decided to err on the side of caution to protect the procedural integrity of the case, choosing to leave the box sealed and turn it over to the Senate to handle when the case advanced to an impeachment trial.
Now that the case is in the exhibit-marking stage, the prosecution believes it is appropriate to open the container and conduct an inventory of its contents.
“We think that will aid in a more efficient and expeditious conduct of the trial if it can be opened now during the pretrial stage,” de Lima said.
Pretrial measures
The proposal was one of four pretrial measures that House prosecutors sought to streamline proceedings and ensuring a more efficient conduct of trial.
Speaking to reporters, de Lima said these measures were the use of Filipino and English during witness examinations; the participation of both public and private prosecutors in presenting witnesses; the adoption of a reciprocal three-day disclosure rule; and the opening of the sealed BIR box.
De Lima said the use of either Filipino or English — or both — during direct, cross and redirect examinations would make the proceedings more accessible to the public.
“This is a very public proceeding and a public trial,” she said. “It would be better if more people understood what was happening.”
She added that the occasional use of Filipino would help viewers and listeners better comprehend the testimonies and arguments presented in court.
Because some witnesses are expected to provide extensive testimony covering a wide range of issues, it would be practical for both public and private prosecutors to handle different aspects of the questioning, de Lima said.
Under the proposal, a witness may be presented by a public prosecutor, a private prosecutor or by both working together, depending on the nature and scope of the testimony.
De Lima clarified that the third proposal did not originate from the prosecution but was instead requested by the defense.
She noted that the prosecution’s witnesses and documentary evidence have already been identified in pretrial filings and marked in advance, making surprise witnesses unlikely.
“We think they already know who our witnesses are and what the evidence is because these are all contained in the pretrial brief,” she said.
Nevertheless, the prosecution agreed to the arrangement to avoid procedural disputes and delays that could hamper the progress of the case.
The measure, she said, is intended to eliminate claims of “surprise witnesses” and ensure that the trial proceeds without unnecessary technical objections.
The court has yet to rule on the prosecution’s requests.
Defense response
The defense panel said they will submit a formal response to the prosecution’s manifestation after receiving the document on Wednesday morning.
Speaking to reporters, Michael Poa, a member of the defense team, confirmed that they had only briefly reviewed the prosecution’s filing due to the continuing document-marking activities.
“We just received it this morning. We haven’t read it in detail yet because we’ve been occupied with the marking process. But we will formally respond to the manifestation,” the defense lawyer said.
Poa said the primary concern remains the completion of the pretrial conference in time for the scheduled start of trial on July 6.
The lawyer noted that procedural adjustments have accelerated the review of evidence and documents. Under Article II, two separate groups are now conducting document marking simultaneously, a move expected to significantly reduce processing time.
“They’re pretty confident that they’ll be done by tomorrow,” the lawyer said, referring to the document-marking teams.
The defense also reported improvements in the pace of document review under Article I, with both sides implementing additional measures to expedite proceedings.
“We’re really working hard so that we don’t have to extend the pretrial conference too much,” the lawyer said.
To meet the target timeline, document marking was scheduled to continue until 7 p.m. on Wednesday.
Thousands of documents
Despite efforts to speed up the process, the defense acknowledged the challenges posed by the sheer volume of evidence being examined.
“There are around 4,000 documents from the prosecution, and there’s a similar number from the defense,” the lawyer said.
The documents include acknowledgment receipts, reports and other supporting records that must be individually reviewed and marked.
Because of the extensive documentation, the defense declined to guarantee that all pretrial activities would be completed by Thursday.
Nevertheless, both parties are reportedly committed to concluding the pretrial conference as quickly as possible.
BIR box
The defense also addressed questions regarding a sealed BIR box and whether its contents could become part of the proceedings.
The lawyer maintained that the issue is separate from the impeachment case and reiterated the defense’s position that only actions allegedly committed during Duterte’s tenure as vice president may be considered in the proceedings.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Duterte versus House of Representatives, the defense argued that impeachable offenses must involve acts committed while the public official occupied an impeachable office.
“Our main contention is that anything before her term as vice president does not constitute an impeachable offense and therefore should be excluded from the proceedings,” the lawyer said.
He declined to comment further on the opening of the BIR box.
Delays possible
The scheduled impeachment trial may face delays if the Senate impeachment court’s timetable is not met, as both the prosecution and defense panels continue to grapple with extensive pretrial preparations.
Under the timeline set by the Senate, which is sitting as an impeachment court, the pretrial conference should conclude by June 25. However, both parties acknowledged that completing the process within the prescribed period remains challenging due to the volume of documents that need to be reviewed, organized and marked as evidence.
Members of both the prosecution and defense panels said the painstaking process of sorting thousands of pages of documents and identifying exhibits has slowed proceedings, raising concerns that the schedule for the formal trial may be affected.
The defense panel also dismissed reports that the pace of the proceedings was being hampered by a shortage of lawyers on Vice President Duterte’s legal team.
Poa said the vice president’s camp has a complete roster of lawyers and support staff handling the case.
“We are fully staffed. The challenge is the sheer volume of work that needs to be completed during the pretrial conference,” Poa said.
He added that the defense team is prepared to extend its working hours and continue proceedings through Saturday, if necessary, to ensure that all pretrial requirements are completed ahead of the scheduled convening of the impeachment trial.
