The Senate impeachment court has paused trial proceedings to allow house prosecutors and defense lawyers to mark more than 1,800 documentary exhibits, including financial, bank and insurance records, in preparation for Article II of the trial against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.
House lead prosecutor and Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno requested dedicated time to process the extensive trail of evidence gathered under court-issued subpoenas.
“There are over 1,800 exhibits, documents that were submitted under the subpoenas released by this court,” Diokno told the impeachment court. “I am referring, Your Honor, to the bank records and other insurance records.”
Article II accuses the Vice President of betrayal of public trust over allegations of accumulating unexplained wealth disproportionate to her lawful income and failing to accurately declare her financial interests in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
To accommodate the voluminous records, Presiding Officer Francis Escudero suspended regular trial hearings for Wednesday (September 9) and Thursday (September 10), ordering both legal panels to convene for document marking sessions starting at 10 a.m. Escudero noted that Friday would be reserved for legislative budget deliberations before trial hearings resume on Monday, September 14.
While agreeing to the schedule for document marking, defense counsel Michael Poa expressed concern over the sheer volume of evidence, requesting adequate time to evaluate the records before prosecution begins presenting Article II.
Acknowledging the prosecution’s prerogative to adjust the presentation order of the articles, Poa asked for at least two weeks to examine the newly marked materials, offering to deduct equivalent days from the defense’s allotted presentation time later in the trial.
Presiding Officer Escudero maintained the Monday resumption date, citing tight calendar constraints due to ongoing Senate budget hearings. However, Escudero suggested potential procedural flexibility, such as allowing the defense to defer cross-examinations until after reviewing the direct testimonies of upcoming prosecution witnesses.
The document preparations coincide with a 104-item request for admission filed by the prosecution panel.
Defense counsel Poa confirmed receipt of the filing on Tuesday morning but noted that the defense team had not yet had sufficient time to peruse its contents.
Rather than addressing the substance of the 104 items, Poa raised a procedural request regarding the response period. Citing Rule 26, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, Poa asked the court to grant the defense 15 days to respond, rather than the seven days proposed by the prosecution.
Escudero stated that the court would rule on the response period at the appropriate time, allowing the trial layout and witness scheduling for the upcoming week to proceed without delay.
Diokno committed to submitting the prosecution’s formal witness notices, subpoena requests, and proposed stipulations to the court by Wednesday morning, adhering to the five-day pre-trial notification protocol as both sides gear up for the trial’s next phase.