There were two surprises during Vice President Sara Duterte‘s impeachment trial on Tuesday, October 13: the bombshell motion of the prosecution to drop three of the four articles of impeachment, and the extensive ruling of presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero delivered less than an hour after the House prosecutors’ request.
So how did Escudero manage to make the ruling in such a short period of time? Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol said that Escudero, with his staff as well as Senate Clerk of Court Renato Bantug Jr., anticipated different scenarios and prepared rulings based on all legal possibilities.
“The presiding officer has prepared rulings for different scenarios but they were in skeletal in form. It still has to be drafted and finalized upon his delivery and formal manifestation in the court,” Tongol in a mix of English and Filipino during a press briefing after the trial on Tuesday, October 13.
Tongol cited the prosecution’s October 6 manifestation signaling its intent to withdraw Article III, which covers bribery, as an example of how Escudero anticipated possible developments.
“For example, the prosecution filed a manifestation to drop Article III on October 6, so with due diligence, the presiding officer prepared and anticipated whatever that is going to be thrown at him at the trial,” he said.
The prosecution ultimately went further, seeking to withdraw Article I, which covers the alleged misuse of confidential funds, and Article IV, which covers grave threats. The court granted the request, leaving only Article II, which concerns Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth.
Tongol said Escudero continued working on his ruling until shortly before delivering it, incorporating inputs from his fellow senator-judges.
“The presiding officer’s rulings considered the inputs of his fellow senator judges. That’s why up to the last minute, he was actually writing and editing his speech,” said Tongol.
This also explained why Escudero was cautious when Duterte’s defense counsel requested a copy of the ruling. Tongol said the presiding officer wanted the written version checked against the ruling delivered in court and reflected in the journal.
“That’s also the reason when the respondent’s counsel was asking for a copy of the ruling, he said he wanted to be careful and that his written speech should be compared to the delivered speech in the journal. The official ruling was the one delivered during the trial,” he added.
Escudero himself explained during the proceedings that the court had prepared for various possible scenarios to ensure it could address issues raised by either party.
The court sought to know “the same, if not more, than each party or both parties combined,” Escudero said, explaining that the preparation was intended to help the court address potential issues and consider different outcomes. – Rappler.com