Chua: Question is on solons who’ll vote against impeaching Duterte

MANILA, Philippines — Instead of accusing lawmakers who found probable cause to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte of being coerced or bribed, the real questions must be asked of those who will disagree with her impeachment, Manila Rep. Joel Chua said on Friday.

Chua, in an online interview, reiterated that members of the House of Representatives’ committee on justice decided on the impeachment complaints based on evidence presented before them — like sworn testimonies from resource persons and documents verified by different offices.

And since Duterte’s camp did not offer any evidence to disprove the allegations contained in the two impeachment raps, Chua said committee members have no basis to decide against the determination of probable cause.

READ: Joel Chua prefers campaigning over minding Sara Duterte’s remark

“It is clear because how […] can you vote against, what will be your basis in doing that?  Isn’t it the other way around, we should ask why they will vote against finding probable cause when the evidence is overwhelming?” Chua said when asked about the allegations from Duterte’s elder brother, Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte.

“The defense panel, the respondent, the legal team of the Vice President did not present even one piece of evidence.  And the basis for the House members would be only the evidence presented before the committee on justice.  Aside from this, we would not have any other basis,” he added.

READ: Luistro: AMLC confirms another Sara Duterte transaction

Chua explained that it would be harder if lawmakers turn a blind eye to the allegations in the impeachment complaints — and vote against the motion to declare the presence of probable cause — when the evidence against Duterte has been staring them in the face.

“There are no external pressures on us and in fact it would be harder for us to justify if we would turn a blind eye on the matter, should we vote against the determination of probable cause when the evidence is screaming at us in the face,” Chua said.

“And it is also clear that they did not present even a single evidence before us, so what would be our basis?” he added.

Last Wednesday, after three clarificatory hearings on the evidence presented against Duterte, the committee on justice unanimously voted in favor of motions to declare probable cause.

When committee chairperson and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro requested a nominal vote to check if there are enough members who supported the two motions from Pinoy Workers party-list Rep. Franz Vincent Legazpi, the secretariat said that all 53 members present voted in the affirmative.

READ: House justice panel finds probable cause to impeach Sara Duterte

But Rep. Duterte questioned this unanimous decision.

In a post on his official Facebook page, the Davao solon said staffers of a certain “Charise” have called the heads of lawmakers’ chiefs of staff to order House members to support the impeachment bid — or else the allocation to their districts under the General Appropriations Act (GAA) will be removed.

It is unclear who the Charisse that Rep. Duterte was referring to is, but Duterte supporters have been using the name to tease House Majority Leader Ferdinand Alexander Marcos, who has been said to share facial similarities with global pop star Jake Zyrus, previously known as Charice Pempengco.

But Rep. Duterte’s claims have been disputed by lawmakers, including Deputy Speaker Albee Benitez who reminded the public that since the GAA is a law, changing it would have to go through Congress or the current legislative processes.

Chua said such statements are mere gossip, reiterating that the vice president’s side did not attend the hearings or offer any evidence to counter the allegations.

The Manila lawmaker stressed that the committee cannot consider statements and press releases outside of the hearing as part of its deliberations.

“These are all gossip; they have been talking about that ever since. That is what they are trying to come up with, and if you see their stand, all of it was released and presented only through the media.  I will say this again, the only evidence that we will base our decision on is the evidence on record, not gossip,” Chua said.

“They want to stir narratives, what they want to sell to the people are narratives and not the truth.  The truth is they did not present any evidence to rebut the allegations hurled at our respondent, the Vice President,” he added.

Earlier, Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V also said countered allegations that there were conditions — alleged budget increments or threats of allocation removal — to coerce justice committee members towards voting in favor of finding probable cause.

Ortega said that there is no need for pay-offs since the committee’s decision was “anchored on overwhelming documentary evidence.”

Three clarificatory hearings were held before members of the committee on justice voted in favor declaring the existence of probable cause. During the hearings, Luistro regularly called on the committee secretariat to ask if Duterte is present so she could present evidence to counter the allegations, but the Vice President’s seat always remained vacant.

Wednesday’s hearing focused on Duterte’s threats against President Ferdinand Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, with the National Bureau of Investigation being asked if the videos and reports submitted to the panel were authentic.

Prior to Wednesday, two hearings to clarify the evidence regarding the grounds in the raps were held: last April 14, the panel discussed allegations of confidential fund (CF) misuse within Duterte’s offices.

On April 22, the panel tackled accusations that Duterte has unexplained wealth.  At one point during the hearings, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Buenaventura confirmed that they saw covered and suspicious transactions made by Duterte and her relatives, like her husband Manases Carpio. /mr