VP Sara Duterte replies to impeach raps
IMPEACHMENT CALL Groups calling for the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte rally outside the Senate compound in Pasay City. —PNA PHOTO BY YANCY LIM
The lawyers of Vice President Sara Duterte have assailed the Articles of Impeachment filed against the vice president as “constitutionally infirm, procedurally defective and substantively deficient.”
Duterte’s lawyers, led by Michael Poa, said the articles are defective because the House of Representatives held a “mini trial” and exceeded constitutional authority by conducting evidentiary hearings and credibility assessments reserved for the Senate impeachment court.
READ: Executive summary of Sara Duterte’s answer to impeach articles
The articles are also substantively deficient because the articles relied on “speculation, political rhetoric and unauthorized evidentiary fishing expeditions” rather than clear proof
Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, chair of the House justice committee, tried to downplay the vice president’s reply by stating that Duterte’s 50-page pleading to the charges touched only on “purely technical issues” and dodged Duterte’s accountability as an impeachable official.
“I don’t know if this is part of their legal strategy, but up to now, we still haven’t seen a direct answer to the allegations of offenses,” Luistro said on Tuesday.
Luistro also said the House’s prosecution team will not file a reply to Duterte’s answer to the Articles of Impeachment against her.
Instead, she said they will file a manifestation, which contains their position, while they opted not to file a reply.
The Senate convened as an impeachment court on May 18 and is set to open the trial on July 6.
‘Mini trial’ assailed, ‘tainted by prejudgement’
The defense argued that the House Committee of Justice conducted a “trial” in April which should only be done by the Senate, while stressing the proceeding is already “tainted by prejudgement.”
The defense cited the remarks of Luistro, who coined the term “mini trial” when referring to their hearings.
Lusitro previously addressed this, saying the term “mini trial” was only used “to make it better understandable on the part of the viewing public.” She also said the panel only made a “clarificatory hearing” to determine probable cause, meaning that what we are looking at is whether there is enough reason for the process to move forward.
But Duterte’s lawyers said the panel “issued subpoenas, received testimonial and documentary evidence, examined witnesses and undertook credibility assessments,” which they said should only be done by the Senate as an impeachment court.
Duterte’s lawyers also said there are “clear indications and declarations” that the House panel “predetermined” her impeachment even before purported additional evidence was received, completed and assessed.
“The proceedings were tainted by prejudgment,” they said, noting that panel members declared that sufficient votes were sufficient even before the hearings were finished. “These pronouncements reveal that the outcome had been predetermined long before the proceedings formally concluded, thereby casting serious doubt on the impartiality and integrity of the process.”
Not impeachable
They also noted that the accusations against Duterte include acts even before she became vice president.
According to Duterte’s lawyers, the Articles “draw heavily” from alleged records, documents, and allegations pertaining to periods when Duterte served as mayor and vice mayor of Davao City, which they noted are non-impeachable positions under the Constitution.
