MANILA, Philippines — The Dec. 16 date earlier cited as the possible conclusion of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial was only an administrative projection and not a deadline imposed on the Senate Impeachment Court, its spokesman said late Monday.
Atty. Reginald Tongol said the date was arrived at through a logistical calculation based on the number of witnesses listed in the pretrial order, the Senate calendar, and previous statements by Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian and the court’s presiding officer.
“It was not set as a deadline,” Tongol told reporters during a press briefing after the 33rd day of the impeachment trial.
“It was simply a projection or estimate based on an administrative calculation for logistical purposes,” he said.
Tongol issued the clarification after senator-judges questioned the use of a projected Dec. 16 end date, saying a fixed timetable could give the impression that the impeachment court had already predetermined the outcome of the case.
He said the court understood the concerns raised by the senator-judges, noting that they would not want the proceedings to appear to be operating under a deadline that could suggest a predetermined resolution.
Tongol stressed that the proceedings remained ongoing and that the evidence, rather than a preset calendar, should determine the pace of the trial.
“The evidence should not be made to follow the calendar. The calendar should follow the evidence,” he said.
He added that the trial could extend beyond Dec. 16 if the court needed more time to hear and examine the evidence. Conversely, proceedings could end earlier if the parties agreed on more stipulations, additional witnesses were dropped, or the House prosecution panel withdrew some of the impeachment articles.
Tongol also clarified that the prosecution had yet to formally move to drop the bribery article, despite statements that such a move was being considered.
If the House prosecution panel formally sought to withdraw an article, he said it would have to file a motion before the impeachment court. The senator-judges would then examine the reasons for the request before the court decided whether to grant it.
The court, he said, could still order the article to proceed if it considered the evidence important to the case.
Tongol also addressed defense objections concerning the confidentiality of bank and insurance records. He said the prosecution was seeking stipulations on the authenticity of such documents to avoid requiring bank officials to individually authenticate each record.
Unlike documents from the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Anti-Money Laundering Council, which he said were considered public and self-authenticating, bank and insurance records were private documents and generally required authentication under the Rules of Court.
