Skip to playerSkip to main content
Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero ruled that the sub judice rule no longer applies to Articles I, III, and IV of the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte because the prosecution withdrew them. This means the prosecution, Duterte, their lawyers, and witnesses can now talk openly about the issues raised in these withdrawn articles.

Escudero also said Duterte does not need to present evidence to defend herself against the three articles because the impeachment court can no longer vote on them or make a decision. He explained that Duterte can now share her side and defend her actions and reputation in public, since these articles are no longer being considered. (Video courtesy of Senate of the Philippines)

Subscribe to the Manila Bulletin Online channel! -
https://www.youtube.com/TheManilaBulletin

Visit our website at http://mb.com.ph
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/manilabulletin
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/manila_bulletin
Instagram: https://instagram.com/manilabulletin
Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@manilabulletin

#VPSaraOnTrial
#ManilaBulletinOnline
#ManilaBulletin
#LatestNews

Category

🗞
News
Transcript
00:00The respondent's presentation of evidence-in-chief shall therefore address Article 2.
00:05The respondent may, however, identify, adopt, and rely upon evidence already adduced and forming part of the official record
00:13without needlessly presenting the same evidence and new, provided that each item is relevant and otherwise admissible with respect to
00:22Article 2.
00:24Number five, the subjudicial rule shall no longer cover the withdrawn articles.
00:30Namely, Article 1, 3, and 4.
00:33Rule 18 requires the parties, their counsel, and witnesses, and other persons covered by the rules to refrain from making
00:39public comments or disclosures
00:41concerning the merits of matters pending adjudication before the impeachment court.
00:46Upon the effectivity of this order, the separate merits of Articles 1, 3, and 4 are no longer pending for
00:53adjudication.
00:54Accordingly, the prosecutors, the respondent, their respective counsels, and witnesses may publicly address, explain, and respond to any matter contained
01:04in those withdrawn articles.
01:06In particular, the respondent, given that she will no longer have an opportunity or need to defend against those articles
01:14through the presentation of evidence before the court,
01:16may therefore answer them, present her account, defend her conduct, reputation, in the course of public discourse.
01:24This freedom extends only to Articles 1, 3, and 4, however, and does not authorize the covered parties by Rule
01:3218 to make any public comment or disclosure
01:35concerning the merits of the retained Article 2, which remains pending before this court.
01:41The freedom to discuss the allegations in the withdrawn Articles, however, does not authorize the unrestricted disclosure or dissemination of
01:49evidence presented in connection with them.
01:52Withdrawal does not declassify evidence, remove an existing seal or protective order, waive any privileged or extinguished duties arising from
02:01privacy, statutory secrecy, witness protection, legal ethics, confidentiality undertakings, or the sensitive character of any material.
02:10Evidence subject to any such protection shall not be copied, reproduced, or photographed, circulated, published, or uploaded, or transmitted, except
02:20as may be expressly permitted by law.
02:23Public statements concerning the withdrawn Articles must therefore be made without disclosing protected evidence, if any there be, in accordance
02:32with existing laws and regulations.
02:40Studies are for actual information.
02:44Particle
02:45Public statements
02:45You

Recommended