To me, and I suppose to most people, there is no difference. In plain English, what is material is relevant. What is relevant is material. But in the impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada for bribery and graft and corruption, there is apparently . . .
Material is when the prosecution invokes so-called presidential mansions to prove bribery and graft.
Relevant is when the prosecution invokes so-called secret bank accounts of Estrada's to prove that he paid for those mansions. The prosecution's line is that Estrada took bribes from illegal gambling syndicates because he needs to support several mistresses, including giving them mansions. But to Estrada's defense lawyers, the mansions are not material at all, because they were not mentioned in the articles of impeachment filed by the House of Representatives before the Senate on Nov. 13. The argument is that since they were not mentioned on the charge sheet, they and the mistresses who allegedly live in them are not material to the task of proving bribery. Therefore, looking into Estrada's alleged bank accounts to show where he hid the bribes with which to buy the mansions is not relevant either.