Vice President Sara Duterte —Inquirer file photo/Lyn Rillon
The Batasang Pambansa on Saturday again served as battleground between Vice President Sara Duterte and the House leadership allied with President Marcos, with her latest, early-morning tirade that included a death threat on the first couple and Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Was it finally a clear ground that Duterte’s critics in the chamber can cite to have her impeached?
The question is all but settled for ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro and Tingog Rep. Jude Acidre.
READ: Solons react to Sara ‘kill order’ video: VP needs psycho evaluation
“These actions … the threats made by the Vice President against President Marcos, first lady Liza Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez constitute a clear and present danger to the Republic,” Acidre said in a statement.
“They destabilize our democratic institutions and reflect a betrayal of the constitutional oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.”
Castro added: “We challenge the House leadership to support impeachment efforts in light of these brazen maneuvers.”
“The Nov. 25 hearing of the committee on good governance must proceed as scheduled to get to the bottom of these allegations,” she said, referring to the House panel investigating Duterte’s use of confidential funds as Vice President and onetime education secretary.
VP ‘not immune’
In interviews with the Inquirer on Saturday, some political and legal experts also shared their thoughts on the possible implications of Duterte’s flare-up.
“Her statements (about the assassination of the President) could be seen or argued as a betrayal of public trust and a violation of her oath to fulfill the Constitution. And as the Philippine National Police itself said, this was an active threat to the President’s life,” said lawyer Michael Henry Yusingco of the Ateneo School of Government.
“That’s a criminal act and the Vice President is not immune from suit,” said Yusingco, a constitutionalist and policy consultant.
But Yusingco also wondered why Duterte had yet to be charged criminally over what he called “a pattern of misuse” of her confidential funds, as revealed in the congressional hearings.
He recalled that some House members themselves had said these findings could be the basis for charging Duterte with plunder.
“So why will you go through a process (of impeachment) that’s very difficult to pursue, very political, very partisan? It will take a lot of time. And the end result is, you will just remove her from office. There is no criminal liability attached to that, No administrative liability attached to that,” Yusingco said.
For Jean Encinas Franco, a professor and political scientist at the University of the Philippines, “there should be an investigation into her statements but not to the extent of impeachment.”
‘Duterte-esque’
“Normally, impeachment is both a legal and technical process, but it is also a political one,” she said. “Do they (Marcos allies) have the numbers? Do they have the support? I think that’s something that’s not far out right now.’’
“Plus, to my mind, impeachment might instead make her even more popular,” Franco said.
“Her actions, statements, they’re very Duterte-esque and brings her closer to the core of her father’s supporters,” she noted, referring to the foul-mouthed leadership style of the Vice President’s father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
“These kinds of threats to violence is something (Duterte supporters) like and would make them rally behind her even more since her political base is borrowed from her father.”
Chel Diokno, human rights lawyer and chair of the Free Legal Assistance Grou, also weighed in: “As we all know, impeachment is really a political process. When we speak of the House of Representatives, I don’t think there will be much issue as far as getting the Vice President impeached. What is crucial is when it gets to the Senate.”
“It’s really difficult to say (whether impeachment can prosper) until we see the articles of impeachment. Because just like in a criminal case, the information determines whether a case has value or not.”
‘Truly ironic’
Yusingco, Franco and Diokno, however, all saw the irony of Sara Duterte demanding due process and the rule of law when her father’s bloody war on drugs had been widely condemned for questionable police operations and general disregard of human rights.
“It is truly ironic that when they are at the receiving end, they will complain about the lack of due process and the lack of respect for basic rights. (Whereas) when they were in power, they were acting with impunity when it came to the rights of ordinary Filipinos,” Diokno said.
“We cannot have double standards here. If they want to complain now, then they should have at the get-go respected the rights of all.”
“The best thing for Duterte now is to come forward, attend the inquiry, take the oath, and testify because if she has nothing to hide, then she has nothing to be afraid of,” he said. “All this is because she has ignored her summons and refused to testify. What she has done is exactly why this is happening to her chief of staff.”
“She has put (her subordinates) in a spot and she should be the one taking responsibility. The buck should stop with her and not with any of her people,” Diokno added.