Solon: Sara Duterte has no defense in impeach case, only seeks dismissal

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte does not seem to have mounted any defense against the Articles of Impeachment as her strategy leans towards seeking dismissal of the case, Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said on Tuesday.

Adiong, spokesperson of the prosecution team for the impeachment trial, said that Duterte’s failure to address the allegations raised against her — despite being given several chances to explain and answer — only stresses the need for the impeachment trial to proceed.

READ: Impeachment court receives prosecution’s manifestation vs Sara Duterte

Article continues after this advertisement

“So, there’s no substantive arguments or counterarguments that they have actually supplied in their answers to the articles of impeachment. It was purely procedural and constitutional objections,” Adiong said in an interview with One News, transcripts of which were sent to reporters covering the House of Representatives.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“So, there’s no point for the House prosecution team to actually supply pleadings, answer or comment on the answer of the Vice President. What the Vice President and her legal team wants is actually an outright dismissal of the case on the basis of procedural, technical and constitutional objections,” he added.

According to Adiong, the absence of facts to deny the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment was also the reason behind the prosecution team’s decision not to issue a reply.

On Monday, the prosecution team through House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil transmitted to the Senate Impeachment Court a manifestation to Duterte’s reply last June 1.

“There’s no need for the House Prosecution to submit its pleading because technically, what they have been saying all along is questioning the procedure, the constitutionality of the entire process. So, we’ve heard that since last year, and we’ve been hearing that during the press conference of the defense team,” Adiong explained.

Article continues after this advertisement

In the manifestation, the House prosecution panel claimed that Duterte’s response offered no “material response,” noting that a formal rebuttal would serve no “useful purpose” for the proceedings.

The panel stated that Duterte’s arguments were “procedural, jurisdiction and constitutional objections” instead of counter-evidence against the accusations of wrongdoing.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The Answer raises no material factual issue that requires a responsive pleading,” it said.

“It does not meaningfully engage the factual allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, but instead concentrates on procedural, jurisdictional, and constitutional objections directed against the continuation of the proceedings.”

READ: House prosecutors: Sara Duterte reply lacks material response

In a press briefing on Monday, prosecution team member and Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno said that the Senate Impeachment Court should proceed with the next step in the absence of new answers from Duterte.

Since there is nothing new that will be worth responding to, Diokno believes that the trial proper should start, adding that the prosecution team is “very ready” to present the evidence.

READ: Diokno: Start trial process as Duterte failed to provide new answers

Forecasting objections

The nature of the Duterte camp’s replies, Adiong said, gives the prosecution team an idea that they will be facing a storm full of objections come trial proper.

“It’s basically because of non-answer and so I would expect, and we would expect, that once the trial comes to a full-blown scenario, the House prosecution or the court itself would be hounded by a lot of objections, technical objections, since they don’t have anything to offer to counter the evidence of the prosecution,” he said.

“So, we would expect a lot of objections, motions to strike, et cetera,” he added.

Adiong said that the prosecution team continues to prepare for the next steps, including the pre-trial conference scheduled on June 15.  Trial proper, meanwhile, is expected to start by July 6.

“The next process would be the pre-trial conference. And I believe that the Senate has already indicated the dates for the pre-trial conference and for the actual impeachment trial, which would be on July 6, if I’m not mistaken,” he said.

“So, come next week, we are hoping, and we’re expecting, that the court will convene for the pre-trial conference so that the House Prosecution team would be able also to submit the evidence and also to submit the list of the names of our potential witnesses. So, basically, the pre-trial conference is the laying down the ground rules for the people to know what the flow of the trial would be,” he added.

Last May 11, Duterte was impeached for a second time after 257 House lawmakers voted in favor of adopting House Resolution (HR) No. 989 which contains the Articles of Impeachment.  Only 25 members voted against it, while nine abstained.

The 257 votes gathered is way over half of what is required under Article XI, Section 3(3) of the 1987 Constitution, which states that a one-third vote of all House members is needed to affirm or override the recommendation from the committee to impeach an impeachable official.

According to HR No. 989, the two complaints’ allegations were consolidated into four grounds:

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust through the systematic liquidation misuse, misappropriation, and irregular of confidential funds amounting to P500 million under the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million under the Department of Education (DepEd)

culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust when Duterte amassed unexplained wealth manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and earnings during her incumbency as a public official

bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust when she gave monetary gifts or payments to DepEd officials to induce the violation and circumvention of procurement and other related laws

culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust by contracting for the assassination of the President, the First Lady, and the former speaker of the House, by making grave threats, and by actively inciting sedition against the republic

/jpv