Facts Not Feelings

  • Home
  • Facts Not Feelings

Facts Not Feelings Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Facts Not Feelings, Digital creator, .

05/09/2026

House prosecution's focus is building airtight case vs Sara; Matibag says warrant boosts impeachment article on same issue

THE House prosecution is determined to build an “airtight case” against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, saying it will continue to present evidence strong enough to meet whatever conviction threshold the Senate impeachment court ultimately applies.

At the same time, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag said the Quezon City court’s finding of probable cause against Duterte for grave threats strengthens the same charge being heard in her impeachment trial.

“Consistent kami from the very start na we never engaged in vote counting,” House prosecution spokesperson and counsel Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said at the Saturday News Forum in Quezon City, stressing that the prosecution remains focused on the evidence rather than the number of votes it may need to secure.

“Basta kami, ang focus namin diyan, again, as we’ve stated, is to establish an airtight case para kahit anong magiging interpretation niyan, we’ll meet it,” Tolosa added.

The prosecution has completed its presentation of Article IV of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment complaint centering on her public statements threatening the lives of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and then-Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez.

Matibag, who was among the guests in the forum, pointed out that the criminal complaint of grave threat against Duterte underwent the Department of Justice’s review before reaching the Regional Trial Court, which subsequently made its own finding of probable cause, or sufficient grounds to proceed with the case.

“The threshold now is the reasonable certainty of conviction,” Matibag said, referring to the DOJ’s standard in reviewing criminal complaints.

However, Matibag clarified that the separate criminal and impeachment proceedings involve different grounds, with the impeachment case concerning constitutional violations and betrayal of public trust.

“It’s based on the culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust,” he said.

He also stressed that the absence of a criminal conviction does not necessarily mean that the conduct involved could not constitute a violation that may be considered in an impeachment case.
“It doesn’t necessarily follow na kung walang conviction o hindi na-file yung kaso, hindi na mag-a-amount sa violation sa binibigay na basehan ng impeachment,” Matibag said.

The Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 98 issued a warrant on September 4 for three counts of grave threats against Duterte in connection with her 2024 remarks involving the President, the First Lady and the former House Speaker.

Matibag said claims that the case was politically motivated should ultimately be tested against the evidence presented before the court.

“Let’s trust the system, the court, that they will rely on the strength of the evidence and the weakness and strength of the evidence to be presented by both parties,” he said.

04/09/2026

Atty. Ade Fajardo
September 4

Romualdez camp surprised and alarmed by dropping of ex-DPWH chief from plunder case, reiterates Bonoan has not linked former Speaker to flood control scam

THE camp of former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez on Friday expressed alarm and surprise over the decision of the Sandiganbayan to drop ex-Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonan from a flood control scam-related plunder case.

Ade Fajardo, Romualdez’s legal counsel-spokesman, also reiterated that the former DPWH secretary or any DPWH engineer or official has not linked the Leyte congressman to any flood control irregularity.

He said the dropping of Bonoan from the plunder and graft case he was facing with other accused, including Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, was not only surprising and alarming but was disturbing as well.

“Iyang naging desisyon po ay alarming at nakakagulat, 'yan po ay nakakabahala,” Fajardo said.

He recalled that when the Ombudsman created a special panel to conduct a preliminary investigation on Romualdez, no one in the DPWH has made any allegation against the former Speaker.

“Going back from the very start to put everything in context po, nang magsimula itong reklamo ng special panel against Congressman Romualdez, wala pong anumang salaysay doon, wala po man lang kahit ni isang taga-DPWH, ni isang statement from Secretary Bonoan, kahit doon sa Blue Ribbon Committee, kahit doon sa Independent Commission for Infrastructure wala pong nag-uugnay kay Congressman Romualdez,” he stressed.

“Ibig sabihin, wala silang makita na partikular na DPWH project kung saan nag-participate o allegedly nag-impluwensiya si Congressman Romualdez para maapektuhan ang resulta, para manalo ang isang partikular na contractor. Walang ganung alegasyon kaya nakakagulat na si Secretary Bonoan all of a sudden is now available as a potential witness,” he said.

“And then suddenly, malaya na siya at granted ang immunity practically kasi hindi na siya akusado,” he added.

Fajardo has asserted that there was no longer any “credible evidence” against his client with the retraction by five Maleta Boys, including start witness Orly Guteza, of their allegations against Romualdez, supported by assertions from 25 other witnesses belying the claims of the original 18 Maleta Boys.

03/09/2026

Whole-day hearings will greatly speed up VP Sara’s trial - Prosecutor Ridon

THE conduct of whole-day hearings planned by the Senate impeachment court for next month would greatly speed up the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, House prosecutor and Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon said.

In a news conference on Thursday, Ridon said the proposed hearing schedule jibes with the prosecution’s goal to finish the trial as soon as possible.

“Yun pong calendar na inilatag ng Senate Impeachment Court, makita po natin that may pagsalubong po yung korte doon po sa aming tunguhin na matapos na po yung paglalitis sa pinakamaagang panahon,” Ridon said.

“So, nabanggit na po ng presiding officer yung kanila pong proposed schedule and timelines, kung saan I think we will be having entire days of proceedings and at the most, four days in a week, trial days,” he added.

Ridon said the new schedule would expedite the proceedings and allow the prosecution to present as many as three witnesses a day.

"So, tingin ko, malaki po ang pagpapabilis po nitong mga proseso na ito. And like what we had stated yesterday, I think as high as the three witnesses po yung pwede natin isalang pagka po ganyan po yung magiging araw nung pong paglilitis, from morning up until at the very latest talaga pong late evening,” he added.

“So marami pong pagpapabilis na maiaambag po ito pong new timelines and schedules and dates,” the solon reiterated.

He noted that the trial timeline would be shortened if the prosecution decides to drop the bribery charge against the Vice President.

“So if the objective of the impeachment court is to wrap up by, before reaching December, tingin ko maabot po yun kung makakapag-presenta yung depensa ng kanila pong witnesses by the middle to end of October till the end of November,” Ridon stressed.

Impeachment court Presiding Senator-judge Francis Escudero announced the planned new trial schedule on Wednesday before he adjourned the day’s proceedings.

Under the plan, on which the Senate would make a decision next week, there would be whole-day hearings on Oct. 1 and 2, October 5 to 9 and Oct. 12 to 15.

The trial would then be suspended to give way to hearings by the Senate Finance committee on the proposed P7.2-trillion 2027 national budget.

The proceedings would resume on Nov. 9 and 16 and would return to normal schedule on Nov. 23 until the trial is finished.

02/09/2026

House prosecutor Ridon: ‘Compartmentalization’ has no place in civilian agencies handling public funds
⠀
A “highly compartmentalized” government office cannot use internal divisions to wall off information about public money because transparency and accountability remain basic requirements for civilian agencies.
⠀
House prosecutor and Bicol Saro Party-list Rep. Terry Ridon made the point following the 21st day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial Wednesday.
⠀
“Yung mga ahensya ng pamahalaan, first principle po iyong transparency at saka accountability, hindi po ba? Ibig kong sabihin parang hindi ata obra, particularly in a civilian agencies na meron konsepto ng compartmentalization,” Ridon said during a press conference after the trial.
⠀
Former Department of Education USec Michael Wesley Poa testified that the Office of the Vice President had a highly compartmentalized structure and maintained that confidential-fund operations were outside his responsibilities despite the senior positions he held under Duterte.
⠀
Ridon said specialization inside government does not justify a setup in which senior officials are unable to explain programs, activities and projects involving public resources.
⠀
“Kasi kung wala naman mga itinatago dapat above board lahat yung PAPs - programs, activities, and projects noon mga opisina. So, tingin ko dapat walang puwang para sa mga opisina ng gobyerno na meron actual compartmentalization of work at the highest or the middle levels,” Ridon said.
⠀
Poa’s testimony has drawn particular scrutiny because he served as Duterte’s chief of staff, spokesperson and undersecretary at DepEd but testified that he lacked personal knowledge of how its confidential funds were actually implemented.
⠀
“Una, 'yun pong description po ng structure ng OVP. Ang sabi, the Office of the Vice President is highly compartmentalized,” Ridon said.
⠀
Joint Circular No. 2015-01 requires the head of agency to oversee the agency-wide use and disposition of confidential funds, maintain internal controls and ensure compliance with government accounting and auditing requirements.
⠀
The prosecution is arguing that dividing duties among officials cannot erase the responsibility to know how public funds under an agency’s control were authorized, spent and accounted for.

02/09/2026

Poa testimony puts VP Sara at center of DepEd’s confidential fund audit response

VICE President Sara Z. Duterte knew that the Department of Education (DepEd) had received an audit observation memorandum on its confidential-fund spending, assented to the proposed response, received a copy before filing and did not stop its submission to the Commission on Audit (COA), former DepEd Undersecretary Michael Wesley Poa testified on Wednesday.

Poa’s testimony places Duterte directly inside the institutional response concerning ₱15.54 million allegedly paid as rewards from DepEd’s confidential funds. It makes it difficult to distance her from that response solely on the ground that subordinates prepared the document.

“In-inform ko po siya that we got the AOM,” Poa told the Senate Impeachment Court on Day 21 of Duterte’s trial.

Poa was then officer-in-charge undersecretary for finance, which supervised DepEd’s AOM Task Force. He also served as Duterte’s chief of staff and spokesperson when she was education secretary.

After receiving the AOM, Poa said he sought Duterte’s permission to consult the official he believed had knowledge of the confidential funds.

“I informed her and asked for permission if I can coordinate with the SDO. And she said, ‘Okay,’” he testified.

The special disbursing officer was Edward Fajarda, who handled the withdrawal and liquidation of ₱112.5 million in DepEd confidential funds released in three ₱37.5-million tranches during the first three quarters of 2023.

Poa said Fajarda referred him to then-DepEd Undersecretary and retired Maj. Gen. Nolasco Mempin for documents that could show the success of activities supposedly connected to confidential-fund expenditures. Mempin later obtained certifications covering Youth Leadership Summits and other military activities.

Poa then returned to Duterte and explained the proposed answers and documents.

“I came back to her and I briefed her on all of my answers to the AOM, and she just said, ‘Okay,’” Poa said.

When Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero asked whether that amounted to approval of what Poa had presented verbally, Poa answered: “Yes, Your Honor, except she didn’t have a copy yet. I was just briefing her.”

“And finally, a day before I submitted the AOM response, I gave her a soft copy of the response itself,” Poa said.

Asked how Duterte responded, Poa answered: “Well, her response was ‘copy.’”

Poa later confirmed that Duterte did not prevent him from filing the response.

The resulting sequence is narrow but significant: Duterte was informed about the AOM, permitted Poa to coordinate with Fajarda, heard a briefing on the proposed answers, received the written response one day before submission and allowed the filing to proceed.

Poa distinguished the response itself from the military certifications attached to it. Asked whether he personally showed Duterte those documents, he said: “Hindi ko po napakita.”

But he confirmed that she knew the certifications existed and had been told what they generally contained.

“Sinabi ko po sa kanya na may ganoong certifications at ’yung gist ng nilalaman ng certifications,” Poa testified.

Those certifications became central to DepEd’s attempt to answer COA’s demand for proof that rewards paid from confidential funds produced successful information-gathering or surveillance.

The military officers who issued the documents testified that their units received no DepEd confidential funds for the activities cited. The certifications also did not identify an informer, a reward payment or specific information bought with public money.

According to Poa, the vice president was informed at the beginning, briefed on the answers, given the draft and aware of the military certifications used in the response.

02/09/2026

Prosecution’s 13-point Poa offer traces ₱112.5-M DepEd fund trail to VP Sara

THE House prosecution on Wednesday laid out a 13-point offer for the testimony of Atty. Michael Wesley T. Poa, saying it intends to show why Vice President Sara Z. Duterte assigned a trusted aide without firsthand knowledge of field operations to answer Commission on Audit (COA) questions involving ₱112.5 million in Department of Education confidential funds.

Private prosecutor Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. presented Poa as a witness for being Duterte’s former DepEd spokesperson, chief of staff, officer-in-charge of finance and head of the procuring entity; former Office of the Vice President spokesperson; and current defense counsel and legal spokesperson.

Tolosa’s first point described him as “one of the Vice President’s most trusted men,” establishing the relationship the prosecution considers central to his assignment.

Points two to four focused on Poa’s knowledge. Tolosa offered to prove that Poa had no prior participation in the operational use of the confidential funds before COA issued its Audit Observation Memoranda (AOM), yet Duterte directed him to prepare the responses.

The prosecution said the officials Poa consulted could not supply firsthand information either: former special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda referred him to then-Undersecretary Nolasco Mempin, while the documents eventually gathered consisted principally of Armed Forces certifications.

Points five to seven challenged the resulting explanation. Tolosa alleged that Poa supplied COA with theories and presumptions despite not knowing how the money was spent on the ground.

He said the AFP certifications did not identify an informer, information purchased, reward paid or successful operation linked to the payment—the four elements Tolosa used to frame the Joint Circular requirement.

Tolosa characterized Poa as acknowledging: “There’s no connection at all.” The prosecution intends to establish that the certifications proved military activities occurred, not that DepEd’s alleged reward payments were made.

The eighth point turned to Col. Dennis Nolasco. Tolosa alleged that, upon Duterte’s instruction, Fajarda handed the confidential funds to Nolasco, yet Nolasco’s name did not appear in Poa’s explanations to COA or Congress.

Point nine alleged that Poa and OVP chief of staff Zuleika Lopez sought to have COA send an audit query rather than an AOM.

The next point connected the officials’ separate roles to Duterte: “Different hands carried out the steps, one principal directed them all.” In Filipino, Tolosa argued that different people acted but one principal gave the orders.

Points eleven and twelve attacked the sufficiency of the liquidation despite COA’s issuance of a Credit Notice.

Tolosa argued that the notice rested on military certifications that did not establish the underlying informers, information or payments, leaving more than ₱15 million in claimed rewards and the broader ₱112.5-million fund without an explained money trail.

Point thirteen reserved other relevant matters that may emerge during Poa’s examination.

Defense counsel Atty. Shiela Sison called portions of the offer “rhetoric aimed to provide drama in this proceeding.”
She disputed Tolosa’s characterization that Poa answered for ₱112.5 million, saying he replied to audit observations rather than assumed responsibility for the funds.

She also stressed that a COA Credit Notice is an official audit document informing an agency of amounts allowed in audit and rejected the prosecution’s claim that it did not resolve the underlying issue.

Sison separately sought to strike Tolosa’s description of Poa as “ang abogadong walang alam.”

Tolosa explained that he meant Poa had repeatedly disclaimed personal knowledge of how the confidential funds were used and apologized: “If I offended you in any way, sir, I’m very sorry for that. That’s not my intention.”

Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero ordered the phrase stricken, calling it discourteous.

When Escudero asked why the prosecution was calling a witness it claimed lacked knowledge, Tolosa said that was precisely the material issue: why Duterte selected Poa to answer COA instead of officials who handled or received the money.

After Sison clarified that she had not stipulated to the prosecution’s factual offers, Escudero ruled independently that “the Chair will proceed to declare Atty. Poa as hostile witness,” allowing Tolosa to ask leading—but not misleading—questions.

01/09/2026

Prosecutor Chua: Boransing, Panopio testimony enough as prosecution drops 2 more AFP witnesses

THE House prosecution will no longer present Lt. Col. Carlos Sandaan Jr. and retired Maj. Gen. Adonis Bajao in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s impeachment trial, saying two witnesses from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) have sufficiently covered the military certifications linked to her alleged misuse of confidential funds.

“Meron na kaming dalawang testigo na ipinresenta base sa parehas na punto, at ganoon din naman ang ipupunto ng dalawa, kaya hindi na ipi-present ’yung dalawa,” House prosecutor Manila Rep. Joel Chua said at a press briefing after the 20th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial Tuesday afternoon.

Chua was referring to Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. Magtangol Panopio, who testified Tuesday on military certifications covering Youth Leadership Summits (YLS) and information education communication activities conducted in 2023.

The certifications were later submitted by the Department of Education (DepEd) to the Commission on Audit (COA) in connection with P15.54 million in confidential funds allegedly spent on rewards.

Chua said the prosecution was satisfied with its presentation on the YLS and the military certifications.

“Yes, insofar as ’yung Youth Leadership Summit is concerned at saka ’yung in-issue nila na certification,” Chua said.

He added: “Kung siguro masasabi natin na iisa lang naman ’yung sasabihin nila, so kagaya din ang sinasabi namin, to shorten — ayaw naman natin ng protracted hearing. Gusto natin matapos na rin ito as long as satisfied naman na kami.”

Boransing testified that his 1st Infantry “Tabak” Division received no DepEd funds for the eight YLS and 53 information education communication activities covered by his certification.

Panopio, meanwhile, said his certification was intended only to establish that YLS activities had taken place in his unit’s area of operations.

Before Panopio took the witness stand, the defense stipulated that no confidential funds were transferred from DepEd to the Philippine Army or AFP for the YLS and information education communication activities covered by the certifications.

The defense, however, declined to stipulate to other points proposed by the prosecution, prompting Panopio to take the witness stand. His testimony was not subjected to cross-examination by the defense.

Chua said Panopio’s testimony largely mirrored what he and Boransing had previously told the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.

“Tama po kayo, kasi ang sinasabi po kanina ni Atty. Robles, parehas din naman ‘yung kanyang magiging tanong at ’yung salaysay, magiging parehas din naman doon kay Col. Boransing, base ito sa kanilang mga naging sagot doon sa Committee on Good Government,” he said.

The prosecution is presenting evidence under Article I involving the alleged misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of P612.5 million in confidential funds released to the Office of the Vice President and DepEd.

Of the amount, P112.5 million was released to DepEd in three P37.5-million tranches during the first three quarters of 2023 while Duterte was education secretary.

01/09/2026

Acidre sees ‘unusual’ pattern from release to liquidation of VP Sara secret funds

TINGOG Party-list Rep. Jude Acidre on Tuesday said an “unusual” pattern has emerged in the handling of confidential funds under Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, from their request and encashment to their recipients and the documents later used to account for the money.

Acidre said the latest questions arose from the testimony of Col. Manaros Boransing II on a military certification used by the Department of Education (DepEd) in responding to a Commission on Audit (COA) observation on its confidential fund expenditures.

“Over the past weeks, nakita natin ’yung unusual request, unusual encashment, unusual recipients, and now we have unusual liquidation documents,” Acidre said at a press briefing during a break in the 20th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial.

The House prosecution has presented evidence on P612.5 million in confidential funds under Duterte — P500 million released to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in 2022 and 2023 and P112.5 million released to DepEd in the first three quarters of 2023 while she was education secretary.

On the OVP funds, prosecution witnesses previously testified on the request, release and encashment of four P125-million tranches and the subsequent turnover of the money by then-special disbursing officer Gina Acosta to security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica upon Duterte’s instruction.

The prosecution has also presented audit records and other documents questioning the identities of purported confidential fund recipients and the manner in which the expenditures were liquidated.

Acidre said Boransing’s testimony added another layer to those questions by showing what he described as an unusual use of supporting documents in the liquidation of DepEd confidential funds.

Boransing testified that the Army’s 1st Infantry “Tabak” Division received no DepEd funds, confidential or otherwise, for the eight Youth Leadership Summits (YLS) and 53 information education communication (IEC) activities covered by his Jan. 1, 2024 certification.

The certification was later submitted by DepEd to COA in response to an audit observation seeking documents showing accomplishments related to P15.54 million in confidential funds allegedly spent on rewards.

Boransing said he understood the certification as the type routinely issued to agencies and other stakeholders participating in military activities.

He said he learned only during an Oct. 17, 2024 House investigation that it had been submitted to COA in connection with the audit observation.

Acidre said the certification showed that the military activities took place but raised questions over whether it could establish how DepEd’s confidential funds were actually spent.

“Ang isang certificate na dapat ay hindi naman ibig sabihin nagkaroon ng direct expense ang Office of the Secretary of Education ay ginamit bilang ebidensya ng liquidation,” he said.

Acidre said the document left unanswered whether it was sufficient proof for liquidation, whether it showed that informants were actually paid and whether it established that the confidential funds were properly used.

“Kung ako pong tatanungin, at base po sa naging testimonya ni Col. Boransing, mukhang hindi po ang sagot sa tatlong katanungan na iyon,” he said.

He said the circumstances surrounding the certification should be viewed together with the earlier evidence presented by the prosecution on how Duterte’s confidential funds were requested, released, handled and liquidated.

“To justify a lie, you have to lie even more,” Acidre said.

“Para po talagang matabunan ang isang pagsisinungaling, kailangan mo pang magsinungaling. At mukhang ’yan po ang napatunayan sa pagsasalaysay po ni Col. Boransing,” he added.

Acidre stressed that confidential funds remain public money and that their confidential nature does not remove the obligation of government officials to account for their use.

“Remember, these are public funds that we are talking about. Kahit ito po ay confidential in nature, ’yung paggamit, it does not erase the accountability of the officers to which the money was entrusted,” he said.

The alleged misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of confidential funds under Duterte form part of Article I of the Articles of Impeachment against her.

01/09/2026

'Mastermind’ tag before ruling? Romualdez camp raises prejudgment concern

CALLING former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez a “mastermind” while the preliminary investigation is still ongoing raises concerns of prejudgment before the evidence has been fully evaluated, his lawyer and spokesperson, Atty. Ade Fajardo, said Tuesday.

Fajardo said such a label could create the impression that a conclusion had already been reached even before the Office of the Ombudsman completes its evaluation of the evidence and Romualdez’s defense.

Romualdez’s lawyers had asked Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla to inhibit from the case in an April 22 letter, citing his public statements on the investigation. The defense maintained that such statements, including repeated references to prosecution, created an appearance of prejudgment.

In a statement, Fajardo said: “Well, sa amin pong appreciation, at kami ay nangangamba na dahil sa maraming mga pampublikong posisyon ng kasalukuyang Ombudsman ay parang na-prejudge na, or parang meron nang konklusyon na nabuo, at hinahabol ang ebidensiya para lang masuportahan 'yung…legal conclusion na sa amin namang palagay ay wala nga.”

A preliminary investigation determines whether there is sufficient basis to bring charges before a court.

Fajardo said public accusations should not get ahead of that process, particularly while witness accounts are changing and additional evidence has yet to be furnished to the defense.

“Ang naging problema namin diyan kasi nga at this stage po ng investigation, ang hinihiling po ng ating mga alituntunin at ng ating batas at mismong Saligang Batas ay fairness and impartiality,” Fajardo said.

He said derogatory labels could shape public opinion even before investigators have resolved conflicting statements and examined the complete record.

“Ang tawag namin po diyan ay prejudicial, at in effect parang ginagatungan 'yung anumang kaisipan,” he said.

Fajardo urged the Ombudsman to resolve the complaints based on evidence properly disclosed and weighed during the proceedings, rather than on labels made public while the investigation remains pending.

31/08/2026

Chair Acidre: VP Duterte statement minutes after Rule 18 ruling was ‘clearly’ a violation
⠀
VICE President Sara Z. Duterte’s public statement issued within minutes of the Impeachment Court’s stricter Rule 18 ruling should serve as an immediate test of whether the sub judice restriction will be enforced equally against everyone covered by it.
⠀
House Committee on Higher and Technical Education chair Jude A. Acidre of Tingog Party-list raised the issue Monday as he called for even-handed enforcement of the Senate Impeachment Court’s restrictions on public comments concerning the trial.
⠀
“Nakabahala po na ilang minuto lang after magkaroon ng ruling ang presiding officer ng Impeachment Court, mayroon nang isang respondent na nagpalabas ulit ng statement na clearly was a violation of the sub judice rule, based on the interpretation,” Acidre said.
⠀
Senate Impeachment Court Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero on Aug. 26 tightened enforcement of Rule XVIII and subsequently reminded Duterte through her lawyers that the restriction also covers her, although he ruled that sanctions could not be applied retroactively to the statement she issued while the new guidelines were being announced.
⠀
Acidre stressed that the prosecution recognizes the court’s authority to protect the independence of the senator-judges, but insisted that strict enforcement becomes credible only when the same standard governs the respondent and both sides of the case.
⠀
“Ang akin lang pong sana, kung ipatutupad man ito nang mahigpit, sana maging pantay po at patas ang pagpapatupad. Hindi po maaaring ang prosecution lang ang may violation; dapat lahat ng respondents,” Acidre said.
⠀
The ruling restricts covered participants from publicly discussing matters that could bear on the merits of the pending impeachment case, including disputed facts, evidence and arguments that could exert outside pressure on the senator-judges.
⠀
Acidre contrasted the restraint expected from prosecutors with Duterte’s repeated public criticism of the impeachment proceedings, arguing that the respondent herself must observe the boundaries imposed by the court.
⠀
“Lalo na kung makikita mo, ang sinasabi po ng ating mga kasamahan na nasa prosecution na sila ay hindi nagsasalita tungkol sa merits ng kaso, ni minsan ay hindi nila name-mention ang impeachment process, maging ang mga senator-judges. Pero doon sa depensa ay, alam naman at naririnig naman natin ang mga pagkakataong kinuwestyon po ng respondent ang kabuuan ng proseso ng impeachment,” Acidre said.
⠀
Duterte’s Aug. 26 statement accused prosecutors of resorting to insults, speculation and political theatrics and described their presentation as weak, prompting Escudero to explicitly remind her camp that future statements would be governed by the new ruling.
⠀
For Acidre, the controversy therefore goes beyond whether the prosecution can continue explaining the proceedings and directly raises the question of whether the respondent will be subjected to the same restrictions.
⠀
“So, ang sa atin lang ho sana ay maging patas ang pagpapatupad nito,” Acidre said.

Address


Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Facts Not Feelings posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

  • Want your business to be the top-listed Media Company?

Share