A 'rehash,' 'evasion' of trial: House prosecutors slam VP Sara's impeachment answer

MANILA, Philippines — The answer to the Articles of Impeachment submitted to the Senate by Vice President Sara Duterte’s camp on Monday, June 1, drew sharp criticism from some members of the House prosecution panel.

Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon, who is assigned as the lead prosecutor for Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses the vice president of betrayal of public trust and unexplained wealth, said that Duterte’s answers are just a "rehash" of her "previous non-answer" to the House Committee on Justice when it conducted evidentiary and clarificatory hearings for the impeachment case.

Ridon also pointed out that Duterte did not provide a direct answer to the fourth Article of impeachment, which accuses her of grave threats.

“Based on the released Executive Summary, the Answer also does not appear to directly address the vice president's threats against the president - an act made well within her term as vice president and in full public view,” Ridon said.

‘Evasion’ of trial

ML Partylist Rep. Leila De Lima, who is assigned as the second lead prosecutor for the fourth Article of Impeachment, described Duterte’s answer as an "evasion of trial."

“Pag-iwas pa rin sa trial ang pinakabuod ng Answer ni VP Sara. Sila itong hindi nagpakita at nagpaliwanag sa mga pagdinig sa Kamara, at ngayon naman ay pinadidismiss nila sa Senado ang impeachment case nang hindi pa man lang napakikinggan ang mga testigo at mga ebidensya,” she said on Monday.

(The point of VP Sara’s answer is an evasion of the trial. They did not show up and explain during the House hearings, and now, they are urging the Senate to dismiss the impeachment case without even hearing the testimonies and seeing the evidence.)

De Lima also said that the vice president must not disregard the Constitution, which specifically says that “the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”

“Once and for all, harapin nya ang impeachment at sagutin ang mabibigat na paratang. Huwag niyang ipagkait sa taumbayan ang katotohanan at pananagutan,” she added.

(Once and for all, she should face the impeachment [case] and answer to the serious allegations made against her. She should not deny the public the truth and accountability.)

The same point was made by Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno, who is assigned as the second lead prosecutor for Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment.

“Simple lang ang tanong: Kung walang itinatago, bakit ayaw ng trial?” Diokno asked. (The question is simple: If there’s nothing to hide, why refuse a trial?)

“Kung nais malaman ang katotohanan, dapat munang marinig ang mga testigo at masuri ang lahat ng ebidensya sa isang bukas at patas na pagdinig. Sundin ang Konstitusyon. Sundin ang due process. Walang special treatment sa mata ng batas.”

(If we want to know the truth, we must listen first to the witnesses and examine all the evidence in an open and just trial. Follow the Constitution. Follow the due process. There’s no special treatment in the eyes of the law.)

The answer

The vice president is seeking the dismissal of the impeachment case against her, according to the lead counsel of Duterte’s defense team, lawyer Michael Poa.

In a press briefing that followed right after they submitted Duterte’s answer to the Articles of Impeachment, Poa said that their submission of the answer means that the vice president is already facing the allegations against her.

“Parating sinasabi kailan haharap si VP, but I think we have to contextualize ‘yung ‘paghaharap’. The fact that we filed an answer now, hinaharap na ni VP na itong mga paratang laban sa kanya,” Poa said.

(They always ask when will the VP face the case, but I think we have to contextualize 'facing' [the case]. The fact that we filed an answer now, the VP is already facing the allegations against her.)

Here are some excerpts from the executive summary of Duterte’s answer:

I. The House Committee on Justice conducted a “trial” but trial can be done only by the Senate.

II. There are clear indications and declarations that the COJ had predetermined the impeachment of the Vice President even before purported additional evidence were received, completed, and assessed.

III. In the "trial" conducted by the COJ, new pieces of evidence not included in the impeachment complaints were introduced which the Vice President was not given the opportunity to confront and answer. This is not allowed and goes against rules of fair play.”

IV. Under controlling case law, an impeachable officer is answerable only for the alleged acts or omissions while holding the impeachable office. In this case, accusations against her include acts even before she became Vice President.”

V. On the matter of the Vice President’s confidential funds, there is no showing that she misused or absconded the same.

VI. On the SALN of the Vice President, under the law, it must be shown that her assets were illegally acquired and/or that she willfully concealed her assets. The Articles of Impeachment failed to show ill-gotten or hidden-wealth.”

VII. With respect to the allegations of political destabilization, sedition, or purported threats against government officials, the Defense asserts that the charges are founded upon statements taken out of context, statements not made by the Vice President herself, interpretations unsupported by competent and admissible evidence.

VIII. There is a standard under the Constitution to establish culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, high crimes, or betrayal of public trust for an impeachable officer to be convicted of any thereof. The allegations against the Vice President fall short of the threshold.

Meanwhile, House prosecutors said that they will “oppose” Duterte’s request for dismissal.