Solons say Duterte camp still failed to address impeachment issues

MANILA, Philippines — Despite being given several chances to rebut the accusations thrown against her, Vice President Sara Duterte and her camp have failed to address issues brought about by the Articles of Impeachment, two House of Representatives lawmakers said on Wednesday.

Prosecution panel spokesperson and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said that the pre-trial brief submitted by the defense panel may be long, but it failed to answer the accusations hurled at the Vice President.

“After reviewing the defense pre-trial brief, one cannot help but notice that it is long on pages but short on answers,” Adiong said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Sara Duterte impeachment case transmitted to Senate

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“The filing spans 72 pages, cites more than a hundred witnesses, and lists hundreds of documentary exhibits. But the question that ordinary Filipinos are asking remains unanswered: Where is the clear and direct answer to the allegations?” he asked.

Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V meanwhile asked whether Duterte’s team wanted to answer the allegations, or is trying to confuse the public so that it can avoid giving answers.

“A pre-trial brief is supposed to be a roadmap,” Ortega said.  “It should help the court and the public understand what the issues are, what the evidence is, and what each side intends to prove. After reading this filing, one cannot help but ask: Is this a roadmap—or a labyrinth?”

“When people read a roadmap, they expect directions. They expect clarity. They expect answers,” Ortega said. “But when everything is described in vague and sweeping terms, the question naturally arises: Is the objective to clarify the issues—or to obscure them?”

Article continues after this advertisement

According to Adiong, filing an answer is not about which side will be able to file a longer response.  Furthermore, Adiong said that the defense’s strategy is questionable since several of the witnesses they want to invite are the same individuals sought to be admitted by the House prosecution panel.

READ: Ridon: New impeachment evidence targets Sara Duterte wealth

Article continues after this advertisement

“This is not about having the most number of pages.  This is not having the most number of witnesses or documents.  The measurement of a good defense is if it is able to answer the allegations.  And in reading the filing, it has left more questions than answers,” he said.

“What’s shocking is that many of the witnesses listed are also from the evidence long presented by the prosecution.  This raises a legitimate question: What exactly is the defense’s independent factual narrative?” he added.

Adiong was referring to the list of names on Duterte’s pre-trial brief, which shows that she wants to have former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, former aide Ramil Madriaga and over 40 other individuals, to testify before the Senate Impeachment Court for her trial.

Both Trillanes and Madriaga have provided evidence to the House committee on justice during the clarificatory hearings, which will be used by the prosecution team to pin down the defense.

During the committee discussions, it appeared that Trillanes finally got vindicated after the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) confirmed the veracity of several alleged Duterte financial transactions that he mentioned in his sworn affidavit.

Madriaga, on the other hand, claimed in a supplemental affidavit that the vice president ordered him in December 2022 to coordinate with Col. Dennis Nolasco about delivering cash to allies in San Pablo, Laguna; a comedy bar in Quezon City; and the Office of the Ombudsman parking lot, as a way of “returning a favor.”

According to Madriaga, four large duffle bags were unloaded from the vehicles, three of them were dark and one was light-colored — containing around P30 million to P35 million each.

This is believed to be the P125 million confidential fund in 2022, which Madriaga said he liquidated in one day and not the reported 11 days.

Also included in the Duterte camp’s pre-trial brief is a statement of issues wherein they accused the committee on justice of not providing them a copy of the documents discussed during the clarificatory hearings on April 14, 22, and 29.

According to the defense, those documents not included in the two original complaints against her should not form part of the prosecution’s evidence.

Adiong said that Duterte’s camp is free to put whatever they want in their pre-trial brief, but it fell short of convincing the people that a trial is not needed.

“Let me be clear: the Vice President has every right to present evidence, call witnesses, and defend herself before the impeachment court. We welcome that. In fact, we want the process to move forward precisely because the Filipino people deserve answers,” he said.

“If the objective was to convince the public that there is no longer a need for a trial, the filing accomplished the opposite. It demonstrates why the Senate must proceed with the proceedings and hear the evidence in full,” he said.

This is not the first time that Adiong criticized the Duterte camp’s strategy.  Last June 9, Adiong said that it appears that Duterte’s lawyers have not been able to mount a defense as their strategy leans towards seeking dismissal of the case.

Adiong’s view was supported by lawyer Lorna Kapunan, one of the private prosecutors tapped by the House, as it seems that Duterte is no longer intent in pursuing a “bloodbath” in her impeachment trial.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Kapunan said Adiong was correct, noting that Duterte’s answer submitted to the Senate Impeachment Court contained no rebuttal to the Articles of Impeachment and merely repeated old arguments about the alleged lack of due process. /mr