The Senate impeachment court denied a request by defense counsel to strike testimony given by NBI Director Melvin Matibag during the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
The ruling maintains the current record of the proceedings despite objections from the defense regarding the quality and relevance of the witness's responses. This clash highlights the legal tensions as the court examines the charges against the vice president.
During the session, defense lawyer Atty. Mark Vinluan objected to the answers provided by Matibag, characterizing them as non-responsive [1]. Vinluan said to the presiding officer, Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero, that he wanted a ruling on the responses and to strike a specific portion of the testimony from the official record [1].
Vinluan said the witness failed to provide direct answers to the questions posed by the defense. However, the court rejected the request to remove the testimony [3].
This trial follows a historic legislative action. Sara Duterte is the first Philippine public official to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives [2]. The legal proceedings began at 2 p.m. on Monday, July 6, 2024 [1].
The trial continues to scrutinize the actions of the vice president through the testimony of government officials. The court's decision to keep Matibag's testimony intact allows the prosecution's narrative to remain in the record, regardless of the defense's objections to the witness's phrasing.
“The Senate impeachment court denied a request by defense counsel to strike testimony given by NBI Director Melvin Matibag.”
The court's refusal to strike the testimony suggests a high threshold for removing witness statements from the record. By allowing the non-responsive answers to stand, the presiding officer ensures the full transcript remains available, but it also places the burden on the defense to neutralize those statements through further questioning or closing arguments.
