Vice President Sara Duterte’s lead counsel, lawyer Sheila Sison, on Wednesday, July 15, urged both the prosecution and the defense to refrain from making legal conclusions during procedural manifestations, saying such matters should be left solely to the Senate impeachment court.

Speaking after the prosecution announced the withdrawal of several witnesses under Article IV of the impeachment complaint against Duterte, Sison clarified that she was not objecting to the withdrawal itself but to the lengthy legal commentaries that often accompanied such announcements.

"I'm not objecting to the manifestation of the prosecution or even the manner by which it was delivered," Sison told the impeachment court.

Sison made the manifestation after private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan confirmed on July 14 that the prosecution had withdrawn Duterte’s chief of staff, lawyer Zuleika Lopez, and House Legislative Security Bureau Executive Director Capt. Belinda Bello as a witness under Article IV, noting that the facts surrounding the alleged threats had already been sufficiently established during the trial’s first five days.

"My concern is that these manifestations are almost always accompanied by lengthy discourse containing conclusions of law and fact, when, in reality, only this impeachment court can determine them," Sison said, referring to Kapunan’s manifestation.

According to Sison, allowing either party to offer legal interpretations during procedural manifestations could affect the fairness and balance of the impeachment proceedings.

"Why is this a concern for the defense? Because this affects the fairness and balance of this impeachment court and the way it would perceive whatever manifestations or expressions of sentiments both parties deliver before this court and before the public," she said.

Sison stressed that impeachment proceedings should remain focused on the presentation of evidence rather than arguments on the merits of the case.

"We are before the impeachment court, and therefore we should try evidence and not advocate for conclusions or positions that we may have already made even before we went to this trial," she said.

She proposed that if either side intended only to withdraw witnesses to help expedite the proceedings, their manifestations should be limited to announcing the withdrawal without discussing legal interpretations.

"If the only intent really is just to withdraw witnesses, then perhaps that fact alone should be mentioned without interpretations of the law. I think that would be more fair for everyone and for the guidance of the public and this court," Sison said.

After Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero likened the prosecution's manifestation to a tender of excluded evidence and asked whether the defense would want the same opportunity in the future, Sison respectfully disagreed.

"With due respect, we disagree because there is no excluded evidence," she said. "They never offered it in the first place, and they merely withdrew the presentation of the remaining witnesses listed in their pretrial brief."

Sison also emphasized that the defense was not asking for equal speaking time or any special privilege.

"I'm not asking for any special treatment or privilege. All I'm asking is that the parties be guided against making conclusions of law that merely advocate their respective positions," she said.

She reiterated that legal conclusions should be left to the impeachment court.

"Conclusions are really just for the court to make and not for either of the parties," Sison said.

Following Sison's manifestation, Escudero reminded both the prosecution and the defense to limit future statements regarding withdrawn witnesses to the withdrawal itself, saying the directive would apply equally to both sides.