House team insists: Let Sara Duterte impeachment trial begin

Vice President Sara Duterte. — Screengrab from Inday Sara Duterte/Facebook

The team assembled by the House of Representatives to prosecute Vice President Sara Duterte asked the Senate impeachment court on Friday to proceed to trial, saying the gravity of the allegations against her “leaves no room for technical evasion.”

The panel, led by 4Ps Rep. Marcelino Libanan, said Duterte’s answer to the Senate summons, where she questioned the validity of the impeachment complaint endorsed by 215 lawmakers in February, “relies on misleading claims and baseless procedural objections.”

“The severity of the charges leaves no room for technical evasion. A trial is not only warranted but necessary to reinforce justice, uphold democratic principles, and affirm that no individual—regardless of rank or influence—stands above the law,” the panel said in its 37-page reply.

“The Filipino people have a fundamental right to witness this process unfold. No bloodbath is necessary. Let the trial begin,” it added.

Duterte is accused of violating the Constitution, plunder and betrayal of public trust for her alleged misuse of confidential funds. She is facing removal from her post and a lifetime ban from office if convicted.

READ: House prosecutors see false claims in Sara Duterte’s answer ad cautelam

Unfit

Last Wednesday, Duterte filed her response seeking to nullify the case for not following the one-year ban rule on impeachment complaints. She also argued that the June 10 Senate order remanding the articles of impeachment to the House meant there was no complaint to answer.

These were countered by the prosecution panel, which maintained that the articles of impeachment were “thoroughly drafted and contains sufficient allegations and evidence justifying a full-blown trial … (and) highlight her unfitness for public office.”

“In contrast, the Answer Ad Cautelam merely relies on false allegations which are all refuted by legal precedents and Supreme Court rulings,” it added.

Modifying SC ruling

The House panel scored Duterte’s camp for “entirely modifying a Supreme Court decision” when it invoked Balag v. Senate to claim the Senate was not a continuing body.

It argued that her legal conclusion was “absolutely contrary” to the spirit of that jurisprudence, which made it clear that the Senate as an institution was continuing and can maintain non-legislative functions such as impeachment trials.

It also clarified that impeachment proceedings did not violate the one-year ban, as the fourth complaint — signed by one-third of the House — was the only one “initiated” under the 1987 Constitution and done within 10 session days.

The first three complaints, filed by civil society groups, were never endorsed to the House committee on justice.

The panel cited Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, which stated that the “initial action” by the House as referred to under the 1987 Constitution “is the referral to the Committee on Justice. Actions by the Secretary General or the Speaker alone do not constitute the ‘initial action’ by the House.”

The panel also refuted Duterte’s claim that the Senate divested itself of jurisdiction over the case as even the remand order made it clear that the complaint was “not dismissed or terminated.”

It argued that the court still exercised authority, as shown by its issuance of a summons and transmission of the articles for Duterte to reply.

It also rejected Duterte’s reliance on Senate Resolution No. 1013, which she claimed requires the prosecution to first present the articles before trial, but the panel said was merely a proposal during the 17th Congress.

The prosecution was set to present the articles on June 11, which was rendered moot when the Senate ordered the complaint to be returned to the House.

Selective, self-serving

The panel scored Duterte for her “selective and self-serving application of principles of law … Duterte’s acts ushers in unpredictable, partial, and selective justice based purely on her convenience and not on any recognized legal standard.”

House impeachment spokesperson Antonio Bucoy, in a press conference, called Duterte’s response a “legally hollow scrap of paper” filled with falsehoods, misconceptions, and sweeping denials.

“She claims that the articles of impeachment themselves are a scrap of paper, but her very response has no substance,” Bucoy said.

General denial

He said Duterte failed to directly deny key allegations, including the spending of P125 million in confidential funds over 11 days, her chief of staff’s alleged attempt to block the release of audit documents, and the use of fictitious names in liquidation reports.

“What’s a general denial? She didn’t even answer the factual allegations. All she did was say, ‘That’s not true.’ She did not deny anything. No explanation. Under the law, that’s tantamount to an admission.”

Under established legal doctrine, Bucoy said, a general denial that fails to specifically refute allegations with facts is effectively considered an admission.

He chided Duterte for calling for a “bloodbath” in her impeachment trial while evading the substance of the case against her.

“This is a bubble bath, not a bloodbath,” he said. —WITH A REPORT FROM REUTERS