The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday warned Davao City Assessor Jaime Adalin, the first defense witness in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, of possible compulsory measures if he fails to submit requested property and travel records by Wednesday without sufficient justification.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero issued the warning after confirming that the court had yet to receive documents requested by senator-judges during Monday’s testimony of Adalin, including a list of properties owned individually or jointly by Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
“We have not received such a report from Engineer Adalin,” Escudero said.
“Neither have we received a copy or name of the travel agency requested by Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo,” he added.
Escudero directed the clerk of court to follow up with Adalin and gave the witness until Nov. 11 to comply or provide a sufficient explanation.
“If by tomorrow the same is not yet complied with, unless sufficient cause or reason is given, the court will be forced to issue compulsory process on the same,” Escudero said.
The missing documents include a list of properties registered individually or jointly under Duterte and Carpio, as well as information identifying the travel agency involved in Adalin’s China trip.
Escudero directed the Clerk of Court to immediately coordinate with Adalin and determine whether he could comply with the requests or provide a valid explanation for the delay.
Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros reminded the court that Adalin had committed to furnishing the property records on Monday, following her request during the previous hearing.
“I actually requested him and he committed to furnishing us those documents within yesterday,” Hontiveros said.
The property records were sought to help determine whether assets registered under Duterte and Carpio correspond to those declared in the Vice President’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
The travel agency information, meanwhile, was requested following Adalin’s difficulty recalling details of his overseas trips despite maintaining that he personally paid for them.
Contempt, Perjury Warning
Earlier in Tuesday’s proceedings, Senator-Judge Vicente Sotto III sought clarification on the sanctions that could be imposed against individuals who give false testimony before the impeachment court.
“Is it not we have penalties and sanctions against those who lie before the impeachment court? Will you please refresh my memory on this matter so that the witnesses and the prosecution and the defense will be reminded as well?” Sotto said.
“They may be subject to contempt by the court, your honor, and in addition to that may be subjected to cases of perjury should one be filed against them before the proper prosecutor’s office and/or court of law because the statements given by any witness is under oath and is therefore covered by our laws on perjury as well,” he said.
“Because the statements given by any witness are under oath and are therefore covered by our laws on perjury as well,” Escudero said.
Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson reinforced the warning, referring to Resolution No. 39, adopted on March 23, 2011, which expressly grants the impeachment court contempt powers.
“Yesterday was not a good day for the impeachment court, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer, simply because we had a witness who smirked, who laughed, almost made a mockery of the impeachment trial,” Lacson said.
“And we don’t want to have a repeat of that kind of testimony,” he added.
Lacson emphasized that the court’s authority to cite individuals for contempt is expressly provided under its rules rather than merely implied. (PNA)