5 hours ago
3
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — After Vice President Sara Duterte asked the impeachment court to dismiss the charges against her, the House prosecution panel submitted its response, debunking her claims and accusing her of forum shopping and misleading the court.
“Public officials must be held accountable impeachable offenses. Only exchanges of civility and a formal examination of evidence before an impartial court is required. The Filipino people have a fundamental right to witness this process unfold,” the prosecution said in their reply.
“No bloodbath is necessary. Let the trial begin,” they added.
Here’s a breakdown of how the House prosecutors negated Duterte’s claims in her response:
Sara says: The Senate did not have the Articles of Impeachment.
House says: The Senate itself said the impeachment was not dismissed.
The prosecution called this claim “false.” They argued that the Senate returning the articles does not mean it gave up jurisdiction over the trial.
“The fact that respondent Duterte was able to file an Answer As Cautelam contravenes her arguments. It is rather strange for respondent Duterte to argue that the Honorable Impeachment court did not have in its possession of the Articles of Impeachment when she admitted having received the same,” the prosecution said.
The Senate’s order was also clear: the Articles of Impeachment were returned to the House without dismissing or terminating the case.
Sara says: The trial cannot crossover from the 19th to 20th Congress
House says: Constitution did not put a time constraint on impeachment
The House prosecutor pointed out that the only time constraint the Constitution imposes on impeachment is the one-year ban on initiating another complaint.
The Supreme Court also recognized in Pimentel Jr. v. Joint Committee of Congress that there is a distinction between Congress’ legislative and non-legislative functions.
“When the Senate sits as an impeachment court, it does not become functus officio, even if its composition changes,” the prosecution said.
“Functus officio” means that there would be no legal authority to act.
In her defense, Dutertecalso cited the Supreme Court (SC) ruling of Balag vs. Senate of the Philippines in trying to reason that “the Senate is not a continuing body”.
The House said that Duterte attempted to change the point of the SC ruling. Within the same ruling, the SC said that “there is no debate that the Senate as an institution is ‘continuing.”
Duterte’s defense put that very line from the SC ruling on the same page they tried to claim that the Senate wasn’t a continuing body.
Sara says: House violated the one-year ban
House says: House has presumption of regularity and legality
Duterte claimed the House intentionally sat on the first three impeachment complaints filed against her, accusing the lower Congress of circumventing the one-year ban.
The House panel said that, absent strong evidence to the contrary, the actions of the lower chamber must be presumed official.
It added that only the fourth and final impeachment complaint was technically “initiated.”
“The One-Year Bar Rule was never circumvented. Only one impeachment proceeding against respondent Duterte was ‘initiated.” Initiation occurred when the Fourth Impeachment Complaint was verified and filed by at least 1/3 of the members of the House of Representatives on February 5, 2025,” the prosecution said.
The House prosecution also thumbed down Duterte’s accusation that House Secretary General Reginald Velasco was told not to transmit the impeachment complaints within the prescribed time.
The House denied all this, saying that all three complaints were referred to plenary within 10 session days.
“Jurisprudence allowed multiple complaints to be filed before they are simultaneously referred to the proper committee,” the prosecution said.
Sara says: No ultimate facts in the impeachment complaint
House says: Duterte misuses the rule on ultimate facts
The prosecution said the Supreme Court requires complaints to state both ultimate facts and supporting evidence.
Ultimate facts refer to the key allegations that will be proven through presented evidence.
“They are the premises that lead to the ultimate facts as conclusion,” the prosecution said.
Evidence must be presented in support of all the articles of impeachment until the resolution of Dutetre’s impeachment is reached.
An example of the House’s argument appears in the first article of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte, which alleges she committed a high crime by publicly threatening to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez killed. In her defense, Duterte argued that “probable cause exists only when the elements of the crime are alleged and established to be present.”
Her camp said that mere allegations do not constitute an offense.
The House prosecution panel dismissed this argument as trivial.
“Respondent Duterte Duterte has already admitted and confirmed in several interviews that: First, that she has specifically directed a person to kill the President, the First Lady, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; Second, that the contracted person has already agreed to carry out her instructions. This is not merely a threat but a contract to kill to be performed by an unnamed contracted assassin,” they said.
Sara says: Corruption claims have no solid proof
House says: Sara failed to address the misuse of public funds
Duterte’s camp said the Commission on Audit’s (COA) findings on her confidential funds were set for appeal, so there was no conclusion to be derived from it yet.
However, the House said that they had the right to hold their own probe independent of the COA.
Duterte also failed to deny the following:
- Large amounts of confidential funds were disbursed within a short amount of time.
- The expenses were excessive, moving beyond the purpose that they were intended for.
- The Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education’s receipts had discrepancies and signs of forgery
- At least P254,898,000 were disbursed to fake people, as confirmed by the Philippine Statistics Authority
“The evidence on record shows that respondent Duterte masterminded the malversation of the confidential funds. Her subordinates testified that she orchestrated everything, signed, attested to, and/or otherwise approved the Physical and Financial Plans, Liquidation Forms and Accomplishment Forms submitted to the COA. Respondent Duterte did not rebut any of the above, evidently because she cannot disprove the truth,” the prosecution said.
