Luistro: No reply, just manifestation to Duterte’s impeach raps answer

MANILA, Philippines — The House of Representatives’ prosecution team will not file a reply to Vice President Sara Duterte’s answer to the Articles of Impeachment against her, as they will just make a manifestation, lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said.

Luistro, in an online interview with reporters on Thursday, said that they may file the manifestation on Thursday or Friday — or even Monday, which is their deadline — depending on the circumstances surrounding the Senate.

Regardless of any developments, Luistro said that their manifestation has been prepared already, and they are just waiting for all members of the prosecution team to sign it.

“It has been prepared already, so the House prosecutors will just sign.  And then after that, we will be filing this with the impeachment court.  And no, we’ll be filing it with the impeachment court and furnish copy of the same to the respondent Vice President,” the lawmaker said.

“Nonetheless this is not a reply, we are not filing a reply, we are filing a manifestation instead, which contains our position while we opted not to file a reply,” she added.

When asked if there would be people inside the Senate on Friday — since newly-elected acting Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian directed the chamber’s employees to adopt a work-from-home setup — Luistro said this is a matter that they have to ascertain.

“That’s why.  So we will be checking also if there is someone to receive the documents.  So if there is no one who would receive, maybe we can file by Monday, because we are given until Monday to file our reply,” she added mostly in Filipino.

Duterte filed her answer to the Articles of Impeachment on Monday, June 1, beating the 10-calendar day deadline set by the Senate Impeachment Court.  The prosecution team is given the chance to reply, and they are tasked to submit their response within five calendar days.

If the deadline falls on a weekend, the party involved is allowed to submit it until Monday.

Duterte’s camp went to the Senate last Monday to submit their answer.  In the answer, the Vice President’s lawyers asked for the dismissal of the impeachment case, claiming that there are infirmities surrounding it.

“We want the articles of impeachment to be dismissed altogether, but whatever happens, we are prepared to mount a defense,” Duterte defense team spokesperson and lawyer Michael Poa said in an ambush interview.

READ: Sara Duterte camp wants impeachment case dismissed over ‘infirmities’

But some members of the prosecution team already questioned Duterte’s answer, saying that it was merely a rehash of the answer — or non-answer — that the Vice President’s camp previously submitted to the House committee on justice.

According to Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, the answers made by Duterte “does not appear to directly address the Vice President’s threats against the President — an act made well within her term as Vice President and in full public view.”

“The prosecution will address these matters fully and properly in its Reply before the Senate impeachment court,” Ridon said.

The dilemma over the prosecution’s reply comes amid a tense showdown in the Senate.  Last May 26, the Senate ended its session after the Minority bloc walked out of the plenary, in response to the Majority’s push to discuss a proposed Senate rules amendment from Senator Rodante Marcoleta.

Marcoleta was asking that the Senate rules be changed to allow online voting.  However, senators from the Minority asked why the matter was being rushed, and why the rule change was being raised through a motion instead of a resolution.

READ: Clash on Senate online voting ends in walkout 

In response to the walkout, the Senate Majority bloc refused to attend session last Monday and Tuesday, resulting in the chamber not doing any legislative work.  The paralysis ended when Majority member and Senator Francis Escudero showed up on Wednesday, giving the Minority a quorum.

During the session, Senator Sherwin Gatchalian was elected as Senate President Pro Tempore, replacing Senator Loren Legarda.  Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri, meanwhile, was elected as Majority Leader.

But the leadership struggle between Gatchalian and Cayetano is just one of the several incidents in a weeks – long drama inside the Senate.

Last March 11, the Senate was embroiled in controversy after Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, who had been absent for six months, showed up.

Dela Rosa was seen running along the Senate’s staircase to dela Rosa evading arrest from National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) personnel out to serve an arrest order from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Senator’s attendance proved to be significant as Cayetano was able to muster 13 votes — the minimum number of votes to have him installed as Senate President, replacing Senator Vicente Sotto III.

Then on March 13, violence erupted in the Senate after gunshots were heard inside the facility.  Cayetano’s camp claimed that the Senate was under attack from NBI personnel stationed at the adjacent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) building.

Both the Senate and GSIS building sit on the GSIS compound in Pasay City.  NBI claimed that it was the GSIS who asked them to be present in their premises to ensure security in their building.

Eventually, initial investigation showed that it was acting Sergeant-at-Arms Ma.O Aplasca who first opened fire as a warning shot.  Police investigators also said that Aplasca’s warning shots were an overkill.

READ: CIDG chief: What Aplasca, team did was ‘an overkill’ 

After the Minority walkout and the Majority’s snub of sessions, there were concerns that the Senate was on the verge of violating the 1987 Constitution.

Deputy Speaker Albee Benitez in an interview earlier said that there is a provision in the 1987 Constitution which states that the Senate cannot adjourn its session for more than three days without informing the House.

Benitez was referring to Article VI, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution which states that “neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.” /jpv