MANILA, Philippines — A verbal clash erupted between House of Representatives' prosecutor Chel Diokno and Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison after the Prosecution's motion to strike off the Defense's alleged use of the term "accused" to refer to Vice President Sara Duterte.
During the 29th day of the impeachment trial, Diokno asked the Senate Impeachment Court to clarify how Duterte should be addressed, questioning the defense’s use of the term "accused."
Diokno said that the impeachment proceedings were not criminal in nature and that Duterte should be referred to as the “respondent.”
“The Bill of Rights applies to all proceedings, however, when we speak of the presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, that is clearly only applicable to criminal cases," Diokno said.
"And we do not want either this court or especially the public to be misled into believing that those particular burdens imposed in criminal cases apply in this particular case, your honor," he added.
Presiding Officer Francis Escudero ruled that the vice president should be addressed as the “respondent,” consistent with the practice of the previous impeachment court.
Sison, however, clarified that the defense referred to Duterte as the “respondent-accused,” not simply the “accused,” and cited the constitutional presumption of innocence.
“At no point in time did the defense claim that the quantum of proof needed in this impeachment case or for this impeachment court to arrive at any decision is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I think, the quantum, or the degree of proof needed to be shown by the prosecution in order to discharge its burden of proof is embedded or ingrained in the decision of the court in Duterte vs HOR. That statement that the Constitution… presumption of innocence, that’s not debatable, your honor. It’s not a matter of debate, your honor,” Sison said.
"We’re talking about the guarantee of the constitutional right to presumption of innocence. In fact, the records also show and media reports would show that the honorable Diokno stated that the constitutional presumption of innocence does not apply in this case, which we find is dangerous to convey to the general public and to all law students,” she added.