By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The House prosecution panel on Sunday accused Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team of slowing down her impeachment trial by refusing to stipulate evidence, warning that the dispute over thousands of documents could further prolong proceedings already facing delays.
Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr., spokesperson for the prosecution, said the defense’s decision to independently scrutinize thousands of documents has prevented prosecutors from moving swiftly to the testimony of state auditor Xylene Mae del Ocampo, who is expected to explain how the Commission on Audit (COA) examined the alleged use of confidential funds by Duterte’s offices in 2022 and 2023.
Tolosa said the defense’s refusal to accept portions of the evidence for stipulation has forced the impeachment court to allow additional time for document verification—an outcome he said would delay the proceedings regardless of whether the defense intended to cause a slowdown.
“I don’t want to judge what their intentions are, whether they’re really doing this on purpose to try to derail or delay the proceedings,” Tolosa said. “But what I will say is, I think it’s clear: intentional or not, that’s the result.”
The dispute centers on the prosecution’s attempt to streamline the presentation of evidence by asking Duterte’s lawyers to stipulate documents that prosecutors intend to use in establishing their case.
The defense rejected several of the proposed exhibits, with lawyer Kristine Ferrer arguing that some documents were incomplete and should therefore be examined more closely before being admitted.
Under the impeachment court’s procedures, the defense is not required to stipulate evidence it disputes.
According to a Senate impeachment court briefer, the defense was asked to acknowledge 29 exhibits but rejected 10. Prosecutors later said the documents covered by the defense’s objections numbered nearly 5,000, dramatically expanding the amount of material that must be reviewed.
Tolosa maintained that prosecutors had been trying to find procedural ways to accelerate the trial rather than prolong it.
“We will have to let the presiding officer know about this so it’s clear we are not the ones causing delay,” he said.
“We are really trying to find ways to make things move faster, but this is what’s happening.”
The evidentiary dispute has particular significance because prosecutors are preparing to question del Ocampo about the COA’s examination of confidential-fund expenditures attributed to Duterte’s offices.
The prosecution had sought to have supporting documents—including receipts and records involving the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, which Duterte previously headed—stipulated in advance so the proceedings could proceed directly to the substance of the auditor’s testimony.
The defense’s objections, however, mean that prosecutors must contend with a more extensive document-review process before portions of the evidence can be formally presented.
The clash reflects a broader tension in the impeachment proceedings: the prosecution wants the trial to move quickly toward witness testimony, while the defense is insisting on a closer examination of the evidence being offered against Duterte.
The Senate impeachment court has already had to intervene in disputes over the handling and verification of contested documents, underscoring the procedural battles that threaten to consume valuable trial time.
For the prosecution, the issue is no longer simply about individual documents but about whether procedural objections are beginning to overshadow the substance of the impeachment case.
With thousands of records still subject to scrutiny, the pace of the proceedings could now depend heavily on how quickly the impeachment court resolves the parties’ continuing disputes over evidence.
And as the trial moves deeper into the confidential-funds allegations, the battle over documents is emerging as another front in the increasingly contentious fight over Duterte’s political and legal fate.
ia/xf
