Duterte camp: House withheld docs, shouldn’t be part of evidence

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp has accused the House of Representatives justice panel of not providing them key documents during the course of hearings, reiterating that those documents not included in the two original complaints against her should not form part of the prosecution’s evidence.

In the pre-trial brief submitted by Duterte’s lawyers to the Senate Impeachment Court — copies of which were sent by sources to INQUIRER — the phrase “The HOR-Committee on Justice did not provide the respondent with copies of the following documents prior to the committee hearing” appeared at least three times.

Every mention of this phrase was followed by a list of documents that were supposedly discussed during the three clarificatory hearings held by the House committee on justice, from the April 14 hearing on the issue of confidential fund (CF) misuse and bribery, the April 22 discussions on undeclared wealth, and the April 29 meet about grave threats.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Senate majority picks Escudero to preside over Sara Duterte trial

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Then towards the end of the defense’s pre-trial brief, Duterte’s lawyers said that the evidence presented by the prosecution — which were discussed during the committee on justice hearings but were originally not part of the impeachment complaints — should not be included in any of the records.

“The respondent submits the following issues: Whether the evidence procured by the House Committee on Justice during its ‘mini-trial’ that had not been appended to any of the Saballa or Cabrera Complaints, should be excluded and expunged from the records,” the defense panel said in its statement of issues.

“[…] Whether the Articles of Impeachment violate the constitutional rights of the respondent. Whether there exists competent and credible evidence sufficient to hold the respondent liable for any of the charges in the Articles of Impeachment, in accordance with the required degree of proof under the Rules and case law,” it added.

For the first mention of the phrase regarding the non-provision of documents, Duterte’s camp listed the several pieces of evidence that were gathered from the April 14 hearing:

Article continues after this advertisement

certifications from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd)

transcripts of hearings conducted by the House committee on good government and public accountability regarding alleged CF misuse

disbursement vouchers, liquidation reports, accomplishment reports, and checks

documentary evidence of CF payments to Mary Grace Piattos, Milky Secuya, and Kokoy Villamin

affidavit and supplemental affidavit from Duterte’s former aide, Ramil Madriaga

identification cards and photos of lawyers

Similarly, Duterte’s camp claimed that the following documents discussed at the April 22 hearing were also not provided — including her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) which she herself filled up:

SALN from 2007 to 2024

Letter from the Anti Money Laundering Council (AMLC)

certificates of tax registration

financial intelligence reports

former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s sworn affidavit

Regarding the April 29 hearing, the defense said they did not get a copy of the USB drive with videos discussed, and the affidavit of investigation from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Article continues after this advertisement

On Tuesday, it was revealed that Duterte’s lawyers want Trillanes — her family’s long-time critic — along with former aide Madriaga to be among the over 40 individuals that would take the witness stand.

READ: Duterte camp wants Trillanes, 40 others, to testify in impeachment trial

Trillanes and Madriaga were both resource persons when the House committee on justice discussed the complaints against Duterte.

Aside from the two, the following personalities or possible representatives of their offices were also identified as possible witnesses:

former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin

former Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla

Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) Executive Director Ronel Buenaventura

Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Charlito Mendoza

National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag

Commission on Audit – Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Office’s Atty. Gloria Camora

Duterte was impeached for a second time last May 11, 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.

According to HR No. 989, the allegations in the two complaints tackled by the House committee on justice were consolidated into four grounds:

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; and

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. /das

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.