Manila: The Senate impeachment court's composition, with only five out of 24 senator-judges being lawyers, underscores the necessity of consulting legal experts rather than operating as a typical court, Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan stated on Monday. This remark came after the court permitted retired Sandiganbayan presiding justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang to testify, overruling the defense's objection that her testimony, which heavily involved laws and jurisprudence, could be judicially noticed.

According to Philippines News Agency, Pangilinan emphasized that Rule 129 of the Rules of Court on judicial notice is chiefly applicable within the judiciary, where judges are expected to be versed in the law. In contrast, the Rules of Court apply to impeachment proceedings only in a supplementary manner. He highlighted that this is not the case for the impeachment court, asking if it was agreeable to treat the proceeding differently. Cabotaje-Tang affirmed his point.

Earlier, defense counsel Mark Vinluan attempted to exclude Cabotaje-Tang as a prosecution witness, claiming her absence from the pre-trial order and arguing that her testimony would infringe upon Vice President Sara Z. Duterte's right to due process. Vinluan deemed the presentation of retired Justice Cabotaje-Tang improper. Nonetheless, the impeachment court allowed her testimony.

House of Representatives prosecutor Chel Diokno defended Cabotaje-Tang's presentation, stating she was there to elucidate the legal concepts under Article II, such as unexplained wealth, Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth disclosures, beneficial ownership, and financial interests. Diokno emphasized that real transparency is not solely about livestreaming the trial but also about ensuring public understanding of the accountability framework being applied.

The prosecution had previously informed the court that Cabotaje-Tang's testimony would delve into legal and institutional principles on public accountability, undisclosed or unexplained wealth, and prohibited business interests under Article II. The defense pointed out that the prosecution itself had relied on judicial notice earlier in the trial.