House Secretary General Reginald Velasco disputed reports that DivinaLaw, a prominent law firm in the country, will help the House prosecution team in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte in July. (File Photo from econgress.gov.ph)
MANILA, Philippines — House Secretary General Reginald Velasco disputed on Wednesday reports that DivinaLaw, one of the more prominent law firms in the country, was tapped by the prosecution team to help them in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte in July.
Velasco clarified this in a statement after news reports came out that the House had engaged the law firm after he visited the Senate for an ocular inspection.
“On private lawyers assisting the public prosecutors: Contrary to some reports, DivinaLaw is not among the private lawyers engaged by the House,” Velasco said, adding: “The legal team assisting our impeachment prosecutors is composed of seasoned professionals committed to ensuring that due process is followed.”
Velasco did not mention the news report, but the Philippine Daily Inquirer ran a story on Wednesday stating that their sources indicated that DivinaLaw would be leading the group of private prosecutors.
The report said that Velasco, during his visit to the Senate as part of inspections for the trial, confirmed that the law office founded by lawyer Nilo Divina would be part of the House impeachment team, along with other private law firms.
He also said the House was expected to incur minimal expenses for the private legal team since the lawyers themselves had offered their services.
“I don’t think they will charge us their usual (legal) fees per hour because they are volunteers,” he added.
READ: Lawyers helping House impeach team ‘experienced,’ ‘angry’
Velasco also noted that the lawyers assisting the House are not “angry” in reaction to the Inquirer report quoting him as saying that many of the private lawyers who offered to help the House team were volunteers “who are angry” with the Vice President.
“The volunteer lawyers assisting the House impeachment team are not merely driven by anger, as some have suggested. Rather, they are dedicated to the cause of justice and public service. Many of them have extensive experience working with public prosecutors and have a deep understanding of the law,” he said.
“Their involvement is a testament to their commitment to upholding accountability and the rule of law,” he added.
Duterte was impeached by the House last February 5, after 215 lawmakers filed and verified a fourth impeachment complaint, hinged on several issues like alleged misuse of confidential funds lodged within her offices, threats to ranking officials including President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., and conduct unbecoming of a vice president.
The articles of impeachment were immediately transmitted to the Senate, as the 1987 Constitution requires a trial to start forthwith if at least one-thirds of all House members — in this case, 102 out of 306 — have signed and endorsed the petition.
READ: House impeaches VP Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate
However, trial has yet to start as the articles of impeachment were not forwarded to the Senate plenary before session ended on February 5 — which means that Congress would have to reconvene first after the election season, or through a special session to discuss the matter.
The alleged misuse of CFs, both within the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd), were both included in Article II of the articles of impeachment.
READ: Duterte’s threats, misuse of secret funds are grounds in 4th complaint
There are seven articles in the verified impeachment complaint:
- Article I: Betrayal of public trust, commission of high crimes due to her threats to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez
- Article II: Betrayal of public trust and graft and corruption due to misuse of CFs within the DepEd and the OVP
- Article III: Betrayal of public trust and bribery within the DepEd
- Article IV: Violation of the 1987 Constitution and betrayal of public trust due to unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets
- Article V: Commission of high crimes, due to involvement in extrajudicial killings in the drug war
- Article VI: Betrayal of public trust due to allege destabilization plots and high crimes of sedition and insurrection
Article VII: Betrayal of public trust due to her unbecoming conduct as Vice President