Cheaper without impeachment trial? Present proof first, solon tells OVP

A House lawmaker contests the claims of the Office of the Vice President that it would be cheaper to drop the impeachment case against Sara Duterte. Senate photo.

MANILA, Philippines — Claims from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) that it will be cheaper for the country not to do an impeachment trial should be backed up with documents and a study, La Union 1st District Rep. Paolo Ortega V said on Thursday.

In a press briefing at the Batasang Pambansa complex, Ortega stated that the OVP must first present a cost-benefit analysis or a matrix to compare the potential savings if the country does not proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, and the amount that will be discussed.

Part of the reasons why Duterte was impeached last February 5 is the questions about OVP and the Department of Education (DepEd )’s confidential expenditures.  From 2022 to 2023, OVP and DepEd, while it was under Duterte, received P612.5 million in confidential funds (CF) — including sums in 2022 that lawmakers believe should not have been part of Duterte’s budget.

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

“Maybe she needs a cost-benefit analysis because she can’t be throwing around statements like that.  Study this intently first, and that again, it’s her opinion.  So this an opinion against an opinion.  It would be better if they study it,” Ortega said in Filipino.

“Maybe it’s premature, maybe, as I’ve said, it’s just her opinion.  How much will we save?  Where did her assumption come from?  If in the next press conference they would release a matrix, it would be better, right?  What gets measured gets done. So if you are throwing these just for the sake of a soundbite, then okay,” he added.

`Impeachment won’t cost P612.5 million’

According to Ortega, he does not think that the impeachment process would cost around P612.5 million.

“I said that they might need a matrix and a cost-benefit analysis, right?  I don’t think expenditures for an impeachment would reach P612 million.  I think it won’t, let’s look at their matrix,” he noted.

Ortega’s responses were borne out of questions regarding Office of the Vice President (OVP) spokesperson Ruth Castelo’s statements on Wednesday, 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.”

Castelo clarified that Duterte is “eager” to face her impeachment trial despite her camp’s efforts to have it dismissed.  However, the OVP spokesperson said Duterte’s next moves will depend on the SC’s decision on the petition to dismiss the impeachment, adding that they welcome the possibility that the impeachment complaint against Duterte will be dismissed.

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

Ortega also disputed Castelo’s claims that the impeachment complaint is defective.

“Well it’s not defective, as per my opinion.  So I guess she better reconsider her statements, but of course it is normal for her to say that.  Again, millions and millions, how many millions, where would we save funds?  If she is able to answer that, maybe I can be convinced with her argument,” he noted.

Ortega was not the first lawmaker to react to Castelo’s statements.  On Wednesday, Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno reminded Duterte’s camp that the impeachment was launched because she did not address issues hurled at her, even after she was given several chances to do so.

Diokno said that if only Duterte made most of the chances given to her regarding her offices’ CF expenditures, the impeachment may have been unnecessary.

Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua also aired the same sentiments, saying that the impeachment would not have been necessary if only Duterte answered allegations against her.

Issues hounding

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 acknowledgment 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 different findings of the committee 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 — signed and endorsed the petition. /mr