Diokno, Sison clash over whether Sara Duterte should be called ‘respondent’ or ‘accused’

MANILA — House prosecutor Chel Diokno and Vice President Sara Duterte’s lead defense counsel Sheila Sison clashed Wednesday over whether Duterte should be referred to as a “respondent” or “respondent-accused” in her impeachment trial.

Diokno moved to strike Sison’s reference to Duterte as “accused,” arguing that the impeachment proceedings are not criminal in nature.

“We all know that this is not a criminal proceeding, this is a sui generis proceeding,” Diokno said, referring to impeachment as a proceeding of its own kind.

Diokno said referring to Duterte as an “accused” could condition the public into thinking that the impeachment case is a criminal proceeding.

He said the court and its presiding officer had consistently referred to Duterte as the “respondent,” and asked that Sison’s statement be stricken from the record.

Sison, however, clarified that she did not refer to Duterte as “accused” alone, but as “respondent-accused.”

She argued that while impeachment is not a criminal case, the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment are “criminal in nature.”

Sison also invoked Duterte’s constitutional right to the presumption of innocence.

Diokno countered that the impeachment trial does not involve criminal liability and that the presumption of innocence and “proof beyond reasonable doubt” standard apply specifically to criminal proceedings.

“The Bill of Rights, Your Honor, 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.

Sison maintained that the defense was not claiming that the prosecution must meet the proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard.

She said the defense was only asserting that the constitutional presumption of innocence applies in the impeachment proceedings.

The defense also pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives in discussing the applicable burden of proof.

Diokno argued that portions of the ruling discussing what should happen during a trial were not binding because the case had reached the Supreme Court before an actual trial took place.

The presiding officer, Sen. Chiz Escudero, eventually ruled on the dispute after checking the official transcript.

Escudero said Sison was correct that the defense had used the term “respondent-accused,” rather than “accused” alone.

The Chair also cited jurisprudence describing impeachment as having elements similar to both administrative and criminal proceedings.

“Impeachment is primarily for the protection of the people as a body politic and not for the punishment of the offender,” Escudero quoted from the Supreme Court ruling.

He added that impeachment is similar to administrative proceedings because it may result in the removal of a public officer, while like criminal proceedings, it involves evidentiary rules and due process.

Escudero consequently denied Diokno’s motion and allowed the defense to refer to Duterte as “respondent-accused.”