Sara Duterete’s failure to address issues led to impeachment – Diokno

Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno has reminded Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp that the impeachment complaint was launched against her because the country’s second-highest official did not address issues against her, even after she was given several chances to do so. Photo from the Facebook page of Chel Diokno

MANILA, Philippines — Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno has reminded Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp that the impeachment complaint was launched against her because the country’s second-highest official did not address issues against her, even after she was given several chances to do so.

In a press briefing on Wednesday at the Batasang Pambansa complex, Diokno was asked about Office of the Vice President (OVP) spokesperson Ruth Castelo’s statements that the country would be lucky if the Supreme Court dismisses the articles of impeachment against Duterte, because it would save the country from spending on a trial that is “technically defective from the beginning.”

Diokno, however, said that if only Duterte had made the most of the chances given to her to explain issues in confidential fund (CF) expenditures before different House of Representatives committees, the impeachment may have been unnecessary.

“First of all, we should remember where the impeachment case originated from. This is the result of an investigation done by our lawmakers, the committees of the House of Representatives, and there were many chances given to Vice President Sara Duterte to explain her side regarding budget issues within OVP, etc,” Diokno said

“But she did not take advantage of those opportunities, which left everybody hanging and wondering what really happened.  If only she answered these allegations that came out during congressional investigations, then we may not have reached this point,” he added.

According to Diokno, the people deserve to know the truth behind the issue, and the impeachment trial is the method of ascertaining if the Vice President indeed committed grave violations.

“But because of that recalcitrance, the people deserve transparency, the people deserve accountability. We need to know what really happened and if Vice President Duterte really committed impeachable offenses. And it’s about time that we respect the process in the Constitution for holding high government officials accountable,” he noted.”

Castelo, in a separate press briefing on Wednesday, said that Duterte is “eager” to face her impeachment trial despite her camp’s efforts to have it dismissed.

Castelo said this after being quizzed regarding the recent Social Weather Station (SWS) survey results, which showed that 66 percent of Filipinos believe Duterte should face the impeachment court to address corruption allegations against her.

According to the OVP spokesperson, Duterte’s next moves will depend on the SC’s decision on the petition to dismiss the impeachment.  Castelo also welcomed the possibility that the impeachment complaint against Duterte would be dismissed, as it would save the country millions of pesos.

“Whatever the Supreme Court says about her case, we will proceed. If the Supreme Court says there is no need because it should be dismissed for technical reasons or whatever, whatever reason the court gives. If it’s for the impeachment trial, that is fine, the Vice President is ready,” said Castelo.

“If it’s not, if the Supreme Court says it cannot be heard at this time. And then we’ll be very lucky actually as a country because we’ll save millions and millions of people, of money on the trial that is technically defective from the beginning,” she added.

READ: OVP says Sara Duterte ‘eager’ to face impeachment raps 

Diokno, however, is not the first to point out that the impeachment would not have been necessary if only Duterte had answered the allegations against her.  After Duterte assured the public that she would explain issues during the impeachment trial, Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua said that while it is a good thing, it is a move that the vice president could have done earlier.

“It’s a good thing that at least they can explain, because we have been waiting for this explanation for a long time already.  So, depending on what they plan to do, we will wait for that,” Chua said.

“(The vice president) should have addressed that during the committee hearings, because if they had, the issue on confidential funds would not have dragged on for so long.  So why only now?” he asked.

READ: If VP Sara addressed secret fund use earlier, issue is done – Chua 

It was Chua’s panel in the 19th Congress, the House committee on good government and public accountability, that investigated issues hounding Duterte’s offices — OVP and previously, the Department of Education (DepEd).

One of the discoveries made during the hearings was that weird names were signing off on acknowledgement receipts (ARs) for the confidential expenses made by Duterte’s offices.

ARs are documents submitted to the Commission on Audit to prove that funding for projects reached its intended beneficiaries, which in this case, are confidential informants.

Antipolo City 2nd District Rep. Romeo Acop had noticed that one of the individuals who signed the ARs was named Mary Grace Piattos — a name similar to a restaurant and a potato chip brand.

Later on, Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong showed two ARs — one for the Office of the Vice President and another for the Department of Education — which were both received by a certain Kokoy Villamin.  However, the signatures and handwriting used by Villamin in the two documents differed.

Both names were also not found inside the Philippine Statistics Authority database.

Eventually, the committee’s findings were included in the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte. Last February 5, Duterte was impeached after 215 House lawmakers verified the fourth complaint.

READ: House impeaches Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate 

The articles of impeachment were immediately forwarded to the Senate on the same day, as the 1987 Constitution requires a trial to start forthwith if at least one-third of all House members — or just 102 out of 306—have signed and endorsed the petition./coa