Ahead of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte in July, a closed-door pre-trial conference will be held on June 18 at the Senate. 

The pre-trial conference is expected to place Duterte’s lawyers and the House prosecutors in one room and discuss which evidence they both agree on to be authentic, and what ground rules they are both comfortable with, among other things.       

What is a pre-trial?

It is often said that impeachment is a sui generis constitutional process, which means it is neither criminal, civil, or administrative. It is unique or a class on its own. The mechanism, both political and legal, seeks to hold impeachable officials accountable.

Neither the 1987 Constitution nor the Senate rules handbook has explicit provisions on pre-trial proceedings.

Resolution No. 39, adopted by the Senate in 2011, however, states: “The provisions of the Rules of the Senate and the revised Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily whenever applicable.”

The 2019 amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure outline the purpose of a pre-trial: it seeks to simplify issues, limit the number of witnesses, and set trial dates, among others.

It also asks both camps to submit a pre-trial brief, which includes a statement of the case and the reliefs prayed for, a summary of admitted facts, main factual and legal issues to be resolved, documents or other object evidence to be marked, and the names of the witnesses, and the summary of their respective testimonies.

Under these rules of court, a pre-trial order shall be released by the court, containing matters resolved during the pre-trial conference.

What will this specific pre-trial conference look like?

The June 9 notice signed by Acting Senate President Win Gatchalian and sent to both the Duterte camp and the House prosecutors appears to rely on these rules of civil procedure. 

It invited both camps to submit a pre-trial brief by June 15, containing their admitted facts, proposed stipulations, a list of documents they have, and their list of witnesses and the purpose of their intended testimonies.

Akbayan Representative Chel Diokno, one of the 11 House prosecutors, previously said that the prosecution panel eyes to present 25 witnesses for the trial. 

If there is evidence that either camp discovers only after the pre-trial conference, they can still use it, provided that they do not surprise the opposing side and the impeachment court at the last minute. They have to identify the witness or the physical evidence, as well as the purpose they will serve, three days prior to their presentation.

“For justifiable cause, including for reasons of safety and security, the parties may reserve disclosure of the names and details of their witnesses falling under said justifications until their presentation before the impeachment court. Reserved witnesses shall be included in the number of witnesses disclosed and the trial dates given to the parties,” the document read. 

Both parties are also invited to attend the June 18 pre-trial conference to resolve the following:

• stipulation of facts and simplification of issues
• marking of evidence
• number and identification of witnesses
• setting of trial dates
• sequence for presentation of evidence and order of trial

The proceedings will be closed to the media and the public to provide the “widest freedom and latitude” in achieving the objectives of the pre-trial conference. 

Have impeachment pre-trial conferences happened before?

The Philippines has only two frames of reference — the trial of former president Joseph Estrada from 2000 to 2001, and the trial of former Supreme Court chief justice Renato Corona in 2012.

The Estrada trial also held a pre-trial conference, presided over by then-Supreme Court chief justice Hilario Davide, on December 6, 2000, during which both camps agreed to present 54 witnesses and complete the trial proper within 34 days (although neither goal was achieved). 

“The conference was held in a bid to iron out kinks and ensure a speedy and orderly trial of the President, who faces charges of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution,” a report from The Philippine Star at the time read. 

The article recounted how camps fought over the number of witnesses to be presented, the time limit on direct testimonies and cross-examinations, and the timetable for the presentation of evidence.

Both camps also reportedly clashed over witness disclosure. The Estrada camp wanted to know the identities of the prosecution’s witnesses in advance, but House lawmakers objected due to the supposed threats endured by the said witnesses.

The Corona trial, on the other hand, did not have a pre-trial conference despite the magistrate’s insistence. 

When the court opened on January 16, 2012, a motion for preliminary hearing was raised after the defense panel argued that the complaint was rushed. Then-Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile ruled there was no need for a preliminary hearing, resulting in the full trial proper. Enrile had been opposed to a pre-trial as it may create an impression that compromises were being made between the prosecution and defense behind closed doors.

Diokno, who was a private prosecutor in the Estrada trial, expressed disappointment over the lack of a pre-trial proceeding in the Corona trial.

“A pre-trial really would have made everything much faster and simpler. All the witnesses could then be laid out, all the exhibits and documents could be marked, so that in the actual trial, you can go straight to calling the witness and asking them questions,” Diokno had said. 

Play Video

The impact of the lack of a pre-trial conference was felt at times during the trial. 

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano said the prosecution cannot be blamed for confusion over which evidence will be presented first because these were matters settled in a pre-trial conference in regular courts.

Then-senator Miriam Defensor Santiago also lamented how a pre-trial proceeding could have streamlined the presentation of evidence and witnesses. She added that the court should have adopted techniques normally available during pre-trial proceedings to shorten the trial and avoid delays. – with reports from Patricia Danica Fontilar/Rappler.com

Patricia Fontilar is a journalism student at the University of the Philippines Diliman and the managing editor of Tinig ng Plaridel, the official student publication of the UP College of Media and Communication. She is currently a Rappler intern.