VP Sara's trial: Her response to the articles of impeachment

MANILA, Philippines – A sweeping technical assault has been launched by the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte on the case against her as the Senate prepares to resume its function as an impeachment court next month.

Duterte’s defense team said in a roughly 50-page answer, of which an executive summary was made, that the Articles of Impeachment “are constitutionally infirm, procedurally defective, and substantively deficient.”

In response, justice panel chair Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro said on Tuesday that the Duterte camp only touched on “purely technical issues.”

READ: VP Sara’s impeachment: Malacañang says no prejudgment

“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,” she said.

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.

Below are the salient points of the defense team’s responses:

‘Mini trial’ assailed, ‘tainted by prejudgment‘

They said that the House committee of justice (COJ) conducted a “trial” in April, which should only be done by the Senate, while stressing the proceeding is already “tainted by prejudgment.”

The defense zeroed in on the remarks of House justice panel chairperson Batangas Rep. Gerville 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.

READ: Senate set for Sara Duterte impeachment trial

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 impeachment court.

Duterte’s lawyers also said there are “clear indications and declarations” that the COJ had “predetermined” her impeachment even before purported additional evidence was received, completed, and assessed.

“The proceedings were tainted by pre-judgment,” 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.”

Accusations reached before she becomes VP

They also noted that the accusations against Duterte include acts dating back to 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.

READ: Sara Duterte impeachment: Senate summons VP, orders response

“An impeachable officer is answerable only for alleged acts or omissions while holding the impeachable office,” they said.

On confidential funds, SALN, threats

The answer also addressed the basis of the impeachment, including the issue with Duterte’s alleged misuse of ₱612 million confidential fund, the alleged violations in her statement of assets liabilities and net worth (SALN), and her remarks supposedly threatening President Ferdinand Marcos, First Lady Liza, and former Speaker and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez.

The Defense maintains that there is still no final determination by “any competent tribunal” establishing misuse, malversation, plunder, graft, or any unlawful disbursement of public funds regarding her confidential funds.

As for the threats, the defense maintained that the accusations rely on statements taken out of context and interpretations unsupported by admissible evidence. “The Defense asserts that the charges are founded upon statements taken out of context, statements not made by the Vice President herself, or interpretations unsupported by competent and admissible evidence. Constitutional accountability cannot rest upon conjecture, innuendo, or strained interpretations of political statements.”

The Senate, which convened as an impeachment court on May 18, is scheduled to begin trial proceedings on July 6.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Read Next

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.