00:00would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted.
00:06And we feel and we believe that this is not fairness
00:10and it is not in keeping with the guarantees of due process.
00:16Thank you, Your Honor.
00:17You may proceed, ma'am.
00:18We thank the lead prosecutor for the calendar today
00:21in that it now has given formal notice that the prosecution after 38 days
00:28and expenditure of government resources presenting all these witnesses
00:38and so-called evidence and spending all our time coming to court
00:44is now formally withdrawing two of those articles for which they had presented evidence.
00:52And we respect the decision of the prosecution, however,
00:55whether this will affect how the defense plan to proceed with its presentation of evidence
01:03is something that we must make clear.
01:08It will not.
01:10Because the prosecution cannot make decisions for the respondent and the defense.
01:17In other words, the prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations
01:26without bearing the burden of having those accusations tested.
01:31And the court has already heard the prosecution's alleged evidence
01:36and the interpretations it laid on them.
01:39And the public has been already exposed to its allegations repeatedly
01:46through long interjections, interpellations, direct examinations,
01:51and the many conclusions and opinions that several of their witnesses have given
01:57before this honorable court.
01:59And therefore, the accusations have already entered the consciousness of those
02:06who must ultimately render judgment.
02:10In other words, the prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard
02:16while the respondent would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted.
02:27And we feel and we believe that this is not fairness and it is not in keeping with the guarantees
02:35of due process
02:37because the right to be heard is not merely satisfied by allowing the respondent some room
02:44to present evidence on her behalf.
02:48It necessarily includes a meaningful opportunity to answer material accusations already publicly advanced against her,
03:00especially in this case where those allegations have been placed before the very tribunal that will decide this case
03:08and all for the entire country and member of this nation for their hearing pleasure.
03:18And so we believe that even as we respect the prosecution's decision to withdraw the three articles or the two
03:30articles today
03:31in addition to article three or the bribery article,
03:36the prosecution nonetheless cannot unilaterally determine how the defense will proceed
03:42or which accusations the judges may hear
03:45and which accusations the respondent may be permitted to answer.
03:51However, it cannot make decisions for us and for the respondent because to allow this would be to confer upon
04:00the prosecution
04:01the extraordinary and impermissible power to control not only the presentation of its own case
04:11but also the scope and substance of the defense case.
04:16Now, if the withdrawal is intended to shorten the proceedings of this case or of the respondent or of the
04:25presentation of the respondent's evidence
04:27so that the court may immediately proceed to judgment,
04:32then we believe that the resulting process would bear the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial,
04:41a proceeding in which the fundamental balance between accusation and defense has been so seriously compromised because, again, on record,
04:53we have spent government resources, time, energy of this court and of all the participants in this trial
05:03representing so-called evidence and hearing testimonial evidence from the witnesses that the prosecution had chosen to present before this
05:15honorable court.
05:17And yet, the defense would now appear to be forced to limit its presentation or its rebuttal to those evidence,
05:29to whatever it is that the prosecution had decided to retain in the Articles of Impeachment.
05:35This we will never allow.
05:39And while we recognize that indeed the prosecution has that prerogative to withdraw articles in the Articles of Impeachment that
05:52they had filed,
05:54in fact, we also recognize that the prosecution may in fact withdraw all articles of impeachment, but of course they
06:04would not do that.
06:05But that prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the
06:14respondent.
06:16The authority to streamline or to achieve speed in a trial is not the authority to diminish due process or
06:29to altogether disregard fundamental rules of fairness.
06:34And the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly.
06:45And just to set the records straight, the lead prosecutor also mentioned the Corona impeachment trial as a precedent for
06:53its decision to withdraw articles one and article four of the articles of impeachment.
07:02But just so it is clear before this Honorable Court, as I'm sure this court can confirm and verify from
07:10the Senate records and so that
07:12that I will also hear from our members also hear from what is happening in the Corona trial when we
07:19withdraw the prosecution of their articles.
07:22The withdrawal of the five articles out of the eight articles in the Corona impeachment happened before the presentation of
07:30evidence.
07:31Not after, as in this case, Your Honor.
07:46You
