Senator Escudero explains impeachment process: neither purely criminal nor administrative

The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday distinguished impeachment from ordinary criminal prosecution, describing the proceedings as sui generis while acknowledging that they share features of both administrative and criminal cases.

Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero made this clarification before the court heard oral arguments from the prosecution and defense on the voting threshold to be applied in deciding the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The issue arose after House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno and defense lead counsel Sheila Sison clashed over whether Vice President Sara Duterte could be referred to as “respondent-accused.”

“Impeachment is primarily for the protection of the people as a body politic and not for the punishment of the offender,” Escudero said in his ruling.

He added that impeachment is primarily a legal process that, “like administrative cases, results in the removal of a public officer and, like criminal cases, requires evidentiary rules and due process.”

The exchange began when Diokno asked the court to clarify how Duterte should be addressed after hearing the defense use the word “accused.”

Diokno argued that the term could give the public the impression that the proceedings are criminal in nature.

“This is clearly not a criminal case by any stretch. There is no criminal liability involved in this case,” Diokno said.

He moved to strike the reference from the record, maintaining that the case deals with Duterte’s fitness to remain in office.

Sison countered that the defense had consistently referred to Duterte not simply as an “accused,” but as a “respondent-accused.”

She also argued that avoiding the term should not create the impression that constitutional protections cease to apply in impeachment proceedings.

“The defense or the counsel for the respondent did not refer to the respondent as accused by itself, but as respondent-accused,” Sison said.

Escudero checked the transcript of stenographic notes and confirmed Sison’s account, citing the recorded phrase “respondent-accused.”

He subsequently denied Diokno’s motion to strike the reference.

The disagreement also touched on the presumption of innocence and the quantum of proof required in impeachment.

Diokno maintained that while the Bill of Rights applies to proceedings generally, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt are standards associated with criminal cases.

Sison said the defense was not claiming that proof beyond reasonable doubt was the standard required for conviction in the impeachment trial.

Escudero ended what he called the parties’ “intramurals” after issuing the ruling, allowing the court to proceed with Wednesday’s scheduled oral arguments.

-Philippine News Agency