PHOTO CREDIT: SENATE PH

House officials on Tuesday urged the public and the senator-judges to focus on the evidence presented in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, saying alleged clerical and typographical errors in investigative documents should not overshadow the substance of the case.

House impeachment adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers, Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V, and Deputy Speaker Jay Khonghun issued separate statements stressing that while the defense has every right to question government records, it must also directly address the testimony and evidence presented before the Impeachment Court.

“Hindi po spelling contest ang impeachment trial," Barbers, a former Surigao del Norte congressman and governor, said. "Ang tanong ay hindi kung may typo. Ang tanong ay kung naapektuhan ba nito ang ebidensiya.”

“Hindi nagbabago ang katotohanan dahil lamang sa isang maling spelling o clerical error," Barbers said. "The defense is entitled to examine every document and raise every legal issue it believes is relevant. That is how due process works."

“But the public should not allow the discussion to be diverted from the central question. This impeachment case will be decided by the evidence—not by the encoding," he said.

Barbers acknowledged that government agencies have the responsibility to prepare accurate records but emphasized that not every clerical error carries legal significance.

“The real question is whether the alleged discrepancies are material. Did they change the facts? Did they alter the evidence? Did they affect the integrity of the investigation or prejudice the respondent’s rights? Those are the questions that matter,” he said.

He also underscored the need to distinguish the investigative documents from the evidence already presented before the court.

“Paperwork should be accurate. But paperwork is not the evidence. If the alleged discrepancies are merely clerical or typographical, they should not automatically be treated as defects in the evidence or in the findings of the investigation," Barbers said.

“The recordings and other evidence presented before the Impeachment Court stand on their own. Questions about the preparation of investigative documents should not be confused with the evidence itself. Those are separate matters and must be evaluated separately," he added.

Barbers said the impeachment proceedings should remain focused on whether the evidence supports the Articles of Impeachment.

“The issue before the Court is not whether every memorandum is perfectly typed. The issue is whether the evidence establishes the acts alleged in the Articles of Impeachment and whether those acts constitute impeachable offenses under the Constitution," he said.

Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V echoed the same view, saying the defense must go beyond pointing out errors in official documents and instead answer the sworn testimony presented by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

“The defense has every right to question every date, entry and document presented before the court. But after pointing out those mistakes, it must still answer the testimony and the evidence behind it,” Ortega said.

Ortega was referring to the testimony of former NBI Cybercrime Division chief Atty. Jeremy Lotoc, who told the Impeachment Court that the bureau found prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction to support recommendations for three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition against Duterte.

“Kung may maling entry, dapat itama at ipaliwanag. Pero hindi nawawala ang findings ng NBI dahil lamang may mali sa pag-type ng isang dokumento,” Ortega pointed out.

He added that clerical errors only become significant if they affect the facts, the reliability of the evidence, or the respondent's ability to answer the allegations.

“A typo is not meaningless, but neither is it automatically fatal to the case. The defense must establish what the error changed and why that change should affect the court’s appreciation of the evidence,” he explained.

Ortega also reminded the public to distinguish clerical mistakes from issues that directly undermine sworn testimony.

“Hindi sapat na sabihing may mali sa papel. Kailangang patunayan kung paano nito pinabagsak ang testimonya, ang findings o ang ebidensiyang sinuri ng mga imbestigador,” he added.

Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker Jay Khonghun said the videos presented during the proceedings and the NBI's findings remain part of the trial record despite the defense's focus on document discrepancies.

“Nasa video ang banta at nasa rekord na ang findings ng NBI. Maaaring kuwestiyunin ang mga dokumento, pero kailangan pa ring sagutin ng depensa ni VP Duterte ang ebidensya,” Khonghun said.

He maintained that while clerical mistakes should be corrected, they do not automatically invalidate the evidence already before the court.

“Itama ang typo, pero huwag babalewalain ang isyu. Hindi nabubura ng maling entries sa dokumento ang mga sinabi sa video, ang testimonya at ang findings na ipinaliwanag under oath,” Khonghun pointed out.

“Pero kung walang naipakitang ebidensya na mali ang laman ng video o ang findings ng NBI, nananatili ang mga iyon sa rekord,” he explained.

Khonghun said the impeachment trial should ultimately be judged based on the strength of the evidence rather than the number of clerical lapses identified during cross-examination.

“Typo ang pinagtatalunan, pero ang banta ang pangunahing isyu. Hindi puwedeng matabunan ng usapin sa encoding ang mga salitang mismong narinig at napanood ng publiko,” he added.

“Matapos ang mahabang cross-examination, naroon pa rin ang mga video at naroon pa rin ang NBI findings. The defense has questioned the paperwork, but it has yet to make the evidence disappear,” Khonghun stressed.

The House prosecution is presenting the NBI's findings under the fourth Article of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of making grave threats and inciting to sedition over statements she made in November 2024. The defense has questioned several alleged clerical errors in supporting documents, while prosecutors maintain that those issues do not diminish the sworn testimony, video recordings, and other evidence already presented before the Impeachment Court.