De Lima ' very concerned' over SC order to Congress on VP Sara impeachment
'Pwede 'yang gawing dahilan ng Senado, na out of judicial courtesy sa Supreme Court, para hindi maging moot and academic ang mga issue raised in those 2 petitions, hindi muna sila gagalaw at hihintayin ang final resolution ng mga petisyon na 'yan,' De Lima told Super Radyo dzBB.
(The Senate can use it, out of judicial courtesy to the Supreme Court, to hold off the impeachment, so that the issues raised in those two petitions would not become moot and academic.)
De Lima said the impeachment trial should proceed since Duterte submitted her answer ad cautelam in compliance with the Senate impeachment court order.
'Doon sa mga hinihingi (ng SC), halos wala sa Senado, more sa Kamara (the SC asked more from the House of Representatives than from the Senate). I am very concerned about that,' De Lima said.
The move, De Lima said, seemingly shows that the SC is questioning the process of the House.
'Hindi kaya sumobra ang pakikialam ng Korte Suprema sa proseso ng impeachment, na nangaling sa House of Representatives?,' the lawmaker said.
(Could the Supreme Court be overstepping by interfering in the impeachment process, which came from the House of Representatives?)
The SC has required the House of Representatives to comment and submit information regarding Duterte's impeachment, particularly the status of the first three impeachment complaints and the basis and authority of the secretary general to refuse the transmittal of the complaint.
The high court asked whether the members of the House had the time to peruse the charges and evidence on the articles before affixing their consent, and whether it was included in the order of business of the House of Representatives for consideration of the plenary.
Meanwhile, the Senate was asked to provide which committee prepared the draft of the articles of impeachment and when it was completed, and if Duterte was given the opportunity to be heard.
De Lima, a former senator and justice secretary, believes that the impeachment complaint did not violate the one-year bar rule of filing an impeachment case.
'I think malinaw yun na hindi lumabag. Pwedeng lunabag kung halimbawa, yung first complaint ay ni-forward agad sa Speaker (of the House), linagay agad sa order of business and ni-refer sa justice committee, so yung mga susunod na complaints, hindi na pwede,' De Lima explained.
(I think it's clear that there was no violation. There was a violation if, for example, the first complaint had been immediately forwarded to the Speaker, placed on the order of business, and referred to the justice committee, so any subsequent complaints would no longer be allowed.)
The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, but the Senate impeachment court voted last June 10 to return the Articles of Impeachment without dismissing or terminating the case.
The House has submitted the first certification confirming its compliance with the one-year ban on impeachment complaints and with the Constitution, but the House 20th Congress has yet to submit the second certification concerning its willingness to prosecute.
Duterte has entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives.
The Vice President denied allegations against her, which include bribery, corruption, betrayal of public trust, misuse of confidential funds, contracting an assassin, and political destabilization. — RF, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
19 hours ago
- GMA Network
De Lima ' very concerned' over SC order to Congress on VP Sara impeachment
Mamamayang Liberal party-list Representative Leila de Lima on Sunday raised her concern over the Supreme Court's (SC) directive to Congress regarding the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. 'Pwede 'yang gawing dahilan ng Senado, na out of judicial courtesy sa Supreme Court, para hindi maging moot and academic ang mga issue raised in those 2 petitions, hindi muna sila gagalaw at hihintayin ang final resolution ng mga petisyon na 'yan,' De Lima told Super Radyo dzBB. (The Senate can use it, out of judicial courtesy to the Supreme Court, to hold off the impeachment, so that the issues raised in those two petitions would not become moot and academic.) De Lima said the impeachment trial should proceed since Duterte submitted her answer ad cautelam in compliance with the Senate impeachment court order. 'Doon sa mga hinihingi (ng SC), halos wala sa Senado, more sa Kamara (the SC asked more from the House of Representatives than from the Senate). I am very concerned about that,' De Lima said. The move, De Lima said, seemingly shows that the SC is questioning the process of the House. 'Hindi kaya sumobra ang pakikialam ng Korte Suprema sa proseso ng impeachment, na nangaling sa House of Representatives?,' the lawmaker said. (Could the Supreme Court be overstepping by interfering in the impeachment process, which came from the House of Representatives?) The SC has required the House of Representatives to comment and submit information regarding Duterte's impeachment, particularly the status of the first three impeachment complaints and the basis and authority of the secretary general to refuse the transmittal of the complaint. The high court asked whether the members of the House had the time to peruse the charges and evidence on the articles before affixing their consent, and whether it was included in the order of business of the House of Representatives for consideration of the plenary. Meanwhile, the Senate was asked to provide which committee prepared the draft of the articles of impeachment and when it was completed, and if Duterte was given the opportunity to be heard. De Lima, a former senator and justice secretary, believes that the impeachment complaint did not violate the one-year bar rule of filing an impeachment case. 'I think malinaw yun na hindi lumabag. Pwedeng lunabag kung halimbawa, yung first complaint ay ni-forward agad sa Speaker (of the House), linagay agad sa order of business and ni-refer sa justice committee, so yung mga susunod na complaints, hindi na pwede,' De Lima explained. (I think it's clear that there was no violation. There was a violation if, for example, the first complaint had been immediately forwarded to the Speaker, placed on the order of business, and referred to the justice committee, so any subsequent complaints would no longer be allowed.) The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, but the Senate impeachment court voted last June 10 to return the Articles of Impeachment without dismissing or terminating the case. The House has submitted the first certification confirming its compliance with the one-year ban on impeachment complaints and with the Constitution, but the House 20th Congress has yet to submit the second certification concerning its willingness to prosecute. Duterte has entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives. The Vice President denied allegations against her, which include bribery, corruption, betrayal of public trust, misuse of confidential funds, contracting an assassin, and political destabilization. — RF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
Duterte's legal counsel: 'No great surprises' in prosecution evidence
THE HAGUE – For former President Rodrigo Duterte's counsel, 'there are no great surprises' regarding the personalities and information included in the pieces of evidence disclosed to them by the prosecution. In an interview with GMA Integrated News, Atty. Nicholas Kaufman declined to detail his client's reaction upon seeing the evidence. However, Kaufman explained his team is 'slowly but surely' going through what he described as an 'immense amount of evidence.'' 'I'm not entitled to discuss exactly what the prosecution has disclosed to us, nor am I going to tell you what defence strategy is and what Mr. Duterte's reaction to those items of evidence exactly is. However, what I can tell you is that, as far as the defense is concerned, there are no great surprises here.' Based on the International Criminal Court's Registry, the eleventh and twelfth batches of evidence submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor between July 1 and July 4 altogether contain 2,315 documents. 'Each of these documents sometimes contains something up to 100 pages. So, it's an immense amount of evidence. We have a team of about nine people, all of whom are devoted to reviewing that evidence,'' Kaufman said. ''We're all skilled in data management. We all know how to use the IT systems of the ICC, and we're slowly but surely reviewing all of that evidence, working towards the September confirmation hearing.' Immediate release Duterte's defense team argued in a newly redacted document dated July 10 that the ICC lacked jurisdiction to try him for crimes against humanity related to his war on drugs while he was president and mayor of Davao City. Kaufman also acknowledged 'any initiatives' calling for Duterte's release, including a recent resolution by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano urging the Philippine government to advocate for placing the former president into some form of house arrest. 'I think that any initiative by any Filipino to bring the former president back home [is welcome], whether it be in the Philippines embassy–I'm not sure whether that would be possible given the current administration–or whether it be just back home to the place where he grew up, to the place where he wants to pass away, God forbid that it be many years in the future.' 'But it's every Filipino's right to be tried in front of a Filipino court, in front of a Filipino judge, and to be prosecuted by a Filipino accuser-slash-prosecutor,' Kaufman added. 'Health bulletins' not appropriate Since Duterte's detention, the public has seen him only once–on a live stream at his initial appearance before the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I on March 14. His daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, has since given updates about his physical condition, adding on July 8 that his medical officer at Scheveningen Prison did not report anything urgent about his state. Two days later, the younger Duterte denied what she called a viral photo purportedly showing her father as bedridden. She also deferred requests about the possibility of releasing health bulletins about or pictures of the former president to his lawyer. 'Publishing health bulletins concerning an ICC suspect is not considered appropriate,' Kaufman said. 'It's an invasion of medical privacy. What I can say is that the former president will have to be brought before the court at some stage in the near future. And then the whole world will see the condition that he's currently in.' ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah declined to comment on Duterte's condition, but said the court 'adopts all necessary measures' to ensure the health of the suspects in its detention center. When asked if Duterte is in good health, exactly four months since his detention, Kaufman repeated his usual line: 'He is in good spirits.' 'When I say that he's in good spirits, I'm talking about a man who's 80 years old and has all the medical conditions, mental conditions, and psychological conditions that accompany a [person] of that age. He's been in prison for almost four months now,'' Kaufman said. ''He was taken to prison under certain circumstances beyond his control. You can just imagine what type of effect that has on an 80-year-old man with all the conditions and ailments that an 80-year-old man would normally have. I can't tell any further than that.' —VBL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
Duterte camp insists ICC lacks jurisdiction, urges his immediate release
THE HAGUE – Former President Rodrigo Duterte's defense team has insisted that the International Criminal Court (ICC) should end the proceedings in his crime against humanity case for lack of jurisdiction. Repeating the arguments in their May 1 submission, lead defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman and associate counsel Dov Jacobs asked the Pre-Trial Chamber I ''to find that there is no jurisdictional basis for the continuation of proceedings against Mr. Duterte and to order his immediate and unconditional release.'' The latest document, dated July 10, responded to the prosecution's earlier position on June 10, raising concerns over access to evidence and the legal basis of the investigation. The defense said the prosecution delayed the disclosure of key materials related to proceedings during the preliminary examination phase. These materials, the defense argued, were essential to their jurisdictional challenge and had only been disclosed after repeated requests. 'The prosecution's failure to initiate [REDACTED] goes beyond mere oversight. Such wilful neglect palpably impeded the defense's preparation of the jurisdictional challenge,' the defense stated. According to the defense, this delay had a significant impact on their preparation and may have influenced previous motions to disqualify judges. The defense also challenged the prosecution's interpretation of Article 12(2) of the Rome Statute, which outlines conditions for the court to exercise jurisdiction. Duterte's lawyers argued that the ICC cannot investigate acts committed in a state that is no longer a party to the Rome Statute at the time jurisdiction is exercised. ''The Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute became effective on March 17, 2019. When the former prosecutor filed her request, and the Pre-trial Chamber issued its decision more than two years later, the preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction could no longer be, nor were they, fulfilled,'' the Duterte camp said on May 1. They maintained that a preliminary examination, unlike an investigation, does not require formal conditions and does not carry legal weight once a state has withdrawn. The defense also rejected arguments invoking the 'fight against impunity,' saying such appeals should not override the court's legal boundaries. Citing past rulings, including the Katanga case, the defense argued that 'the pursuit of accountability cannot prioritize victims' expectations over a suspect's right to legal propriety and due process.' While the prosecution argued that Duterte should not benefit from the Philippine government's decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the defense countered that the principle of complementarity and ongoing domestic proceedings should be taken into account. ''Mr. Duterte has never expressed a desire to shirk accountability,'' the defense said. In an interview with GMA Integrated News on Saturday, Kaufman reiterated a previous statement attributed to the former president upon his arrest in March. 'It's the right of every Filipino to be tried in front of a Filipino court and a Filipino judge and to be prosecuted by a Filipino accuser or prosecutor,' Kaufman said. Duterte is currently at the ICC Detention Center awaiting trial in connection with the killings in his war on drugs when he was mayor of Davao City and when he was president of the Philippines. 'Many of us want to see him released. He's an 80-year-old man. He should be released, in my opinion, but that matter is subject to litigation at the moment. It's ongoing, and I cannot comment any further on it,' Kaufman said. The confirmation of charges hearing is set to begin on September 23. —VBL, GMA Integrated News
