House prosecutor: Swear in senators as impeach trial judges pronto
"I hope they can convene by taking their oath as senator-judges also on June 11. It's up to them how their agenda will include that. But that's the most practical way of convening the impeachment court while they are still in session," said impeachment prosecutor Lorenz Defensor, who serves as House deputy majority leader and representative of the 3rd district of Iloilo.
Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero wrote the House of Representatives to say that the reading of Articles of Impeachment on June 2 has been postponed to June 11 so the Senate could prioritize approving important pieces of legislation.
Based on the legislative calendar of the 19th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives resume session from June 2 to 13 before they adjourn sine die on June 14.
Congress will resume session on July 28 when the 20th Congress opens.
"Further delay means that the Senate cannot constitute itself as the impeachment court if we will not hold sessions the following day on June 12, kasi holiday (because it's a holiday)," Defensor said.
He added, "Meaning wala pang senador ang makaka-take oath, magtatapos na ang 19th Congress kasi mag-a-adjourn na kami sine die. So meaning, wala pa rin impeachment court by June 13, June 14. Kasi walang nag-take oath on a session day."
(This means no senator will be able to take an oath as a judge. The 19th Congress would end because we will adjourn sine die. So meaning, there would still be no impeachment court by June 13, June 14, because nobody took an oath on a session day.)
Abide by Senate's decision
However, Defensor said he and the other impeachment prosecutors of the House of Representatives cannot do anything but abide by the Senate's decision.
"I am disheartened because the delay has been long enough, but a lawyer in any court, the defense as well as the prosecution, will have to abide by whatever the court will decide on and whatever order or whatever process the Senate court will issue," Defensor said.
"So tatanggapin namin 'yun. Parang abogado lang sa korte (So we will accept that, just like a lawyer in court)," he added.
Lost time
Defensor and another House leader, House Deputy Majority Leader and La Union 1st district Representative Paolo Ortega, expressed concern over the delay.
Ortega said, "Well, may delay, may cause of delay. Doon lang tayo may konting apprehension kasi sayang 'yung oras. A few months ago, a few weeks ago, may na-set na tayo na oras tapos biglang ganito na naman."
(Well, there's a delay, a cause of delay. That was our apprehension because time will be lost. A few months ago, a few weeks ago, a timeline was set then here comes a new schedule.)
For his part, Defensor said, "I accept the reason for delay of the Senate President. Anyway, what is one week? And they said that they will prioritize the priority bills under the LEDAC (Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council). But as for any further delay, it's very bad for democracy. It's not a good reflection of how the Senate wants to proceed with this impeachment trial."
"So sana ma-reconsider ng Senado ang kanilang desisyon na ipatagal pa (Hopefully the Senate would reconsider their decision to push back the date). While we respect the decision of the Senate as the impeachment court eventually, we hope that they will uphold their duty to hold trial for this impeachment," he added.
GMA Integrated News has sought comment from Escudero regarding the matter, but he has yet to respond as of posting time. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
No rules violated in VP Sara impeachment —House exec insists
The House of Representatives today confirmed that it has received the Supreme Court resolution asking for additional information and documents related to the petitions on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, and that it shall comply. "We confirm receipt of the notice sent by the Supreme Court yesterday, July 10, 2025. The matter has been forwarded to appropriate offices and has taken note of the directive of the court," House Secretary General Reginald Velasco told GMA Integrated News. "We will see kung ano yung order ng Supreme Court. Pag-aaralan ng legal department. We will also consult the prosecution team kung ano yung isasagot sa any order from the Supreme Court," he added. "The House of Representatives and Secretary-General Reginald S. Velasco, as respondents in the said petitions, have been required to submit the additional information enumerated in the Resolution, and will comply accordingly," House Spokesperson Atty Princess Abante said in a statement. "We have already referred the Resolution to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as our counsel, and shall coordinate closely with the OSG to ensure the submission of the required information within the non-extendible period of ten (10) days provided by the Supreme Court," she added. Velasco also maintained that his office did not violate the Rules on Impeachment when he did not immediately transmit the first three impeachment complaints to the Office of the Speaker. "Wala. Kasi nga under our rules kasi, yung impeachment complaint will stay with the Office of the SecGen and then will be referred at the time na okay na," Velasco explained. "Wala naman kasi timeline din yung from the SecGen to the Speaker," he added. Velasco also explained that several members of the House of Representatives had asked him for additional time to file their impeachment complaint. "Nagpahintay yung ibang congressman na huwag munang i-refer kay Speaker kasi nga meron pa silang complaint na mas maraming mage-endorse because of the time constraint, di ba? Pag ni-refer kasi yung, I mean if we follow the timeline, refer kay Speaker, refer sa (Committee on) Rules, and then refer sa (Committee on)) Justice. Remember sa Justice 60 days yon so masyado matagal yung proseso. So they requested me na maghintay lang for another complaint which will be endorsed by the required one-third," he said. Velasco also maintained that even though the Rules on Impeachment provide that he should immediately transmit the verified complaint to the Office of the Speaker, the rules do not specify a specific time frame. "Immediate. Pero wala rin time yon. Parang yung sa forthwith yon, di ba? Sa forthwith, wala rin timeline doon eh. Trial shall proceed forthwith, wala rin timeline. So it's up to the interpretation of the official concerned," Velasco explained. House impeachment prosecutor Rep. Joel Chua of Manila said the House will comply with the Supreme Court's orders. House spokesperson Princess Abante said the matter has been referred to the counsel of the House. "We have already referred the Resolution to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as our counsel, and shall coordinate closely with the OSG to ensure the submission of the required information within the non-extendible period of ten days provided by the Supreme Court," Abante said in a statement.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
Palace on Alan Cayetano's Duterte house arrest resolution: 'Noted'
''Noted.'' This was the response of Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro when asked for comment on the resolution filed by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano calling the Philippine government to push for the interim release of former president Rodrigo Duterte before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The senator also urged the administration to enter into an agreement to place Duterte under house arrest at the Philippine Embassy in the Netherlands. According to Castro, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin ''Boying'' Remulla already made a remark about the request for interim release. ''Nagsalita na po ang SOJ Boying Remulla patungkol po sa interim release. At kung may ganiyan pong mga suggestions mula kay Senator Alan Cayetano, noted,'' she said during Friday's briefing. Manila Representative Bienvenido Abante, who chaired the House committee on human rights in the 19th Congress, expressed no objection to the proposed Senate resolution saying it may have no impact at all. "The resolution does not have any bearing at all dahil 'yung resolution naman is asking the Philippine government, di ba? And the request should come from the Philippine government kung papagamit nila 'yung ating embassy sa Netherlands para 'yung ating dating Pangulo ay doon siya mag-stay," Abante told reporters in an online interview. "I believe that Sen. Allan would have the right to file any resolution. Yet sa akin, I don't think there is any bearing on that as far as the ICC is concerned," he added. The legislator said there is no assurance yet if the Philippine government will heed the resolution in case it is adopted by the Senate. But even if the government does, Abante, said, it is also unknown what action the International Criminal Court will take on the matter. "Well, it remains to be seen kung 'yan ay aprubahan ng ating pamahalaan. As far as I'm concerned, kahit na po siguro ang ating pamahalaan ay mag-request sa Netherlands about that, I do not know if the ICC would listen sapagkat palagay ko mukhang hindi na yata pinakinggan 'yung petition ng kampo ni dating pangulo na siya ay ilagay sa isang o itangkilik ng ibang bansa. So kung 'yan ang nangyari, I don't think that the ICC would also try to accommodate him on that," Abante explained. He reiterated that he has no objection to the resolution especially if it concerns the health of the former president. "I do not have any problem with that actually. If the government will be able to justify that resolution, baka maaari. Sa akin, medyo okay na rin kung, halimbawa, he'll be staying at the embassy ng Pilipinas for health consideration. Again, gusto ko lang sabihin na I do not know if the ICC would actually listen. But sa akin, walang problema yon," he said. "Siguro naman, I think the Philippine Embassy also has, perhaps, a mandate to help the Filipino abroad on that consideration. Palagay ko naman, titingnan din maigi ng ating embahada ang health condition ng ating dating Pangulo because that would be their concern," Abante added. ACT Teachers Party-list Rep Antonio Tinio, for his part, expressed belief that Cayetano's proposal cannot be implemented because the Philippines is no longer a party to the Rome Statute. "The proposal to have Duterte detained in the Philippine embassy in The Hague is a non-starter, since the ICC will only consider interim release to a member state. Too bad for him now, since Duterte himself caused the Philippines to withdraw from the ICC. Or does the senator expect special treatment for Duterte from the ICC? In which case it's not going to happen," Tinio said in a statement. "Yet another senator playing to the gallery, telling Duterte supporters what they want to hear to rally the faithful and keep them agitated," he added. Duterte was arrested in the Philippines by local authorities on March 11, based on a warrant of arrest issued by the ICC. He is currently detained in the Scheveningen Prison in The Hague. His daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, earlier said that the former president has lost a lot of weight since his detention in The Hague, describing him now as 'skin and bones.' She also said that her father has asked that his remains be cremated should he pass away while detained in The Hague.—AOL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
3 days ago
- GMA Network
House prosecutor after VP Sara says she'll address confi funds: Why only now?
"Sana noong committee hearing, pinaliwanag na nila at hindi na humaba nang ganito yung issue tungkol sa confidential fund. So why only now?" Manila Rep. Joel Chua, one of the House's impeachment prosecutors, asked. File photo "Why only now?" House impeachment prosecutor Joel Chua, congressman for Manila's 3rd District, asked this question after Vice President Sara Duterte said she will address the issue of supposed confidential funds misuse during the impeachment trial. "It's a good thing na at least mapapaliwanag na nila. Dahil matagal na naman na natin inaantay yung paliwanag nila," Chua said. "Sana noong committee hearing, pinaliwanag na nila at hindi na humaba nang ganito yung issue tungkol sa confidential fund. So why only now?" he added. (It's a good thing because at least they will be able to explain it. Because we have been waiting for their explanation for a long time. If only they had explained it during the committee hearing, then we wouldn't have ended up at this point.) The vice president also said she will answer the allegations in public in case there will be no trial. In response to Duterte's ally Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa's saying he will question the jurisdiction of the Senate in the 20th Congress over the Articles of Impeachment that were transmitted during the 19th Congress, Chua said, "Irerespeto natin kung anuman ang ninanais ni ating butihing senador, Senator Bato dela Rosa. Sana nga lang ito ay ginagawa nila nang walang kinikilingan." (We respect whatever the good senator wishes to do. We just hope that it is done without favor to anyone.) The impeachment prosecutor also maintained that the 20th Congress has jurisdiction over the Articles of Impeachment. "Ako po naniniwala mayroon po jurisdiction dahil sinasabi ko nga po at ito po yung aming stand, na ito po nga Senate ay continuing body. At yun po ay mananatiling stand po namin," Chua explained. (I believe there is jurisdiction because, and this is our stand, the Senate is a continuing body. And that will continue to be our stand.) He also issued a challenge to the vice president and her supporters. "Kung sila po ay naniniwala na wala naman pong masamang ginawa, ito po yung pagkakataon para malinis po yung pangalan ng impeachable officer," Chua said. (If they believe that they have done nothing wrong, then this is their opportunity to clear the name of the impeachable officer.) Chua also said that the unmodified opinion given by the Commission Audit to the Office of the Vice President for the year 2024 does not mean there were no irregularities. "Iba naman po yung nilalabas po nila ngayon kaysa sa dati. So tingnan na lang po natin dahil unang-una po, yung issue po nung yung mga dokumento po na galing po sa amin, at yung nag-issue po sa kanila ng notice of disallowance ay galing din sa COA," Chua said. (What they are putting out now is different from what was before. So let's look into it because, first of all, the issue of the documents is from us, and the notice of disallowance they received is also from COA.) "Dahil tinanong din po namin sa committee hearing ang COA, doon sa committee hearing ng Committee on Appropriations na bakit sila nagiging, kung anong ibig sabihin ng notice of disallowance. So sinasabi nga po nila, meron daw problema sa paggamit," he added. (We asked COA during the committee of appropriations hearing what the notice of disallowance meant, and they said they had problems with the fund use [of the OVP].) Chua also reiterated that the House Prosecution Panel has a strong case. "Hindi lang naman ang issue sa impeachment ay hindi lang naman naka-focus sa confidential funds. Marami pong issue na nakalahad po sa iba't ibang articles po ng impeachment complaint," he stressed. (The issue of impeachment is not just focused on the confidential funds. There are a lot of issues laid out in the articles of the impeachment complaint.) — BM, GMA Integrated News
