House prosecutor: Senate can't vote to dismiss VP Sara impeach case
Vice President Sara Duterte attends a legislative inquiry into her office's use of public funds at the House of Representatives in Quezon City, Philippines on November 25, 2024. REUTERS/Eloisa Lopez
An impeachment prosecutor of the House of Representatives on Thursday disagreed with the position of Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero that senator-judges can vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Representative Gerville Luistro of Batangas' second district expressed her view after Escudero on Wednesday said the Senate impeachment court may vote on a motion to dismiss the articles should a member of the impeachment court make such a submission.
"The Impeachment Court cannot dismiss the Articles of Impeachment," Luistro told GMA Integrated News.
"The Constitution is clear. The power/function of the Impeachment Court is to try and to decide. Let us take note of the use of the word 'and,'" Luistro added.
She also said both the prosecution and the defense panels must be given an opportunity to present their evidence.
"Trial on the merits is mandatory. Ample opportunity to present evidence must be given both to the prosecution and the defense. Then and only then can the senator-judges decide whether to convict or to acquit," Luistro said.
Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa had moved in the plenary for the dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment, but his motion was eventually amended that the complaint be returned to the House of Representatives pending a couple of certifications.
Speaking at a press conference regarding the matter, Escudero said there is no prohibited motion and that senators cannot be stopped from making such a motion. As a collegial body, Escudero said, objections to motions are put to a vote.
"Always by simple majority. Ang hindi lamang required ng simple majority [kasi] two-thirds ang kailangan kapag magbobotohan, iyong to, acquit or convict [an impeachable official under trial]," Escudero said.
(The only case when a simple majority is not required is on deciding whether to convict or acquit the impeachable official, which requires two-thirds.)
What the Charter provides
Asked if there was any legal or constitutional basis for Escudero's statement, Luistro replied, "When the Constitution does not provide, we should not provide."
For her part, ML Party-list Representative-elect Leila de Lima lashed out at Escudero's view on the issue.
"May Chiz Escudero version na talaga ang 1987 Constitution. Ibang-iba sa original," De Lima said in an online post.
(There's really a Chiz Escudero version of the 1987 Constitution. Totally different from the original.)
De Lima is expected to join the House prosecution panel in the 20th Congress.
'Disservice' to Filipinos
Meanwhile, House leaders said dismissing the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte without the presentation of evidence would be a disservice to the Filipino people by the Senate impeachment court.
House Assistant Majority Leaders Ernesto "Ernix" Dionisio of Manila and Zia Adiong of Lanao del Sur made the assertion in response to Escudero's statement in a press conference on Thursday.
"At the end of the day, ano ba 'yung basis ng motion to dismiss? Each senator should act as an impartial judge, whether or not they are in favor of the accused or not. Doon mo makikita na may pinapanigan agad kapag nagmo-motion to dismiss without hearing a piece or pieces of evidence. Wala pang pinipresentan, gusto na nilang i-dismiss," Dionisio said.
(What is the basis of motion to dismiss to begin with? If a Senator-judge will make a motion to dismiss without hearing the pieces of evidence, then that senator-judge is clearly partial because he or she wants a dismissal without hearing the evidence.)
"The people are watching, history will write itself now. We don't want to overstep, but it is our opinion that the impeachment is the best way to see whether or not guilty or not guilty after seeing the pieces of evidence," Dionisio added.
Respect the Constitution
On the other hand, Adiong said senator-judges should base their decision whether to convict or acquit an impeachable official on the merits of the complaint rather than dismissing it outright.
"Kung may mga motion to dismiss, ang mga senator-judges, ako... I still maintain my optimism that they will decide based on the merits of the evidence. There are senators who have already prejudged the outcome or already have their own leanings, their own biases. [At] wala naman problema if they vote for either to convict or to acquit. Basta ang position lang po namin is to respect what the Constitution says and let the impeachment process proceed," Adiong said.
(If the motion to dismiss will be put forward... there is no problem if a senator-judge wants to acquit or convict. However, we stand by our position that what the Constitution should be respected and let the impeachment process proceed.)
Adiong was referring to Article XI Section 3.4 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that "in case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed."
The impeachment complaint endorsed by over 200 lawmakers on February 5 accuses the Vice President of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes involving the alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and threatening to kill President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., his wife Liza, and his cousin Speaker Martin Romualdez.
A question of why
With regard to the question of senator-judges dismissing the impeachment case outright, Adiong said, "It's not the question of can they do it? It's the question of why should they do it?"
"There is a verified impeachment na complaint ang pinag-uusapan rito ay pera ng taong bayan (There is a verified impeachment complaint involving state funds), allegations that constitute high crimes, tantamount to betrayal of public trust, among others, laid down in the Constitution... The public deserves to know the truth, the public deserves to know kung saan napuntaha 'yung kanilang pera (The public deserves to know the truth, the public deserves to know where their money went)," Adiong added.
The full presentation of evidence in an impeachment trial, Adiong said, will also allow justice to be served to the Vice President.
"The only way for us to find out the truth and at the same time give due process to the defendant is to continue with the impeachment trial," Adiong said. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
18 hours ago
- GMA Network
‘Undoubtedly Chinese': Manila court voids Alice Guo's mayorship
Former Bamban mayor Alice Guo, also known as Guo Hua Ping, attends a Senate hearing on September 9, 2024. REUTERS/ Eloisa Lopez A Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) has ruled that dismissed Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo is 'undoubtedly Chinese' and deemed her mayorship 'void.' In a 67-page quo warranto decision, Judge Liwliwa S. Hidalgo-Bucu of the Manila RTC Branch 34 stated that Guo Hua Ping and Alice Guo are one and the same person. During a Senate inquiry, Senator Risa Hontiveros revealed that the National Bureau of Investigation found that Guo Hua Ping and Alice Guo have the same fingerprints, but their relation with one another was denied by the dismissed Bamban mayor's legal counsel. Respondent Guo Hua Ping is undoubtedly a Chinese citizen, born to Chinese parents, namely Guo Jian Zhong and Lin Wenyi. She and her parents are holders of Chinese passports,' the decision read. It further explained that Guo's Philippine passport is not considered a 'conclusive proof of citizenship,' just like her birth certificate. 'The Certificate of Live Birth of Alice Leal Guo contains dubious entries, which are not supported by concrete and credible evidence,' the decision read. Guo's arrest came after she faced several accusations, including having a fake identity, being a Chinese spy and being involved in a Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO) syndicate. She claimed she was a Filipino citizen and denied her involvement in illegal POGO operations. With the court's decision on Guo's citizenship, it not only concluded that she is disqualified to hold the position as Bamban mayor but is also prevented from running for the said position in the first place. 'Guo is nothing more but a usurper of the Office of the Mayor of Bamban, Tarlac. The fact that she won the election and has already assumed office is of no moment as it did not cure her disqualification of lack of Philippine citizenship,' the decision read. 'Her disqualification was already existing at the time of the filing of her Certificate of Candidacy. It follows, therefore, that her proclamation was deemed void,' it added. In August 2024, the Office of the Ombudsman ordered the dismissal of Guo for grave misconduct. —RF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
21 hours ago
- GMA Network
Diokno, Lacson: Impeachment court cannot junk VP Sara's case by majority vote
The senator-judges cannot junk the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte by simple majority vote based on the Constitution nor should the motion come from them, incoming lawmakers of the 20th Congress Chel Diokno and Panfilo Lacson said Sunday. ''Yun ay wala rin sa Konstitusyon. Wala sa Constitution yung simple majority vote to dismiss impeachment (the simple majority vote to dismiss the impeachment complaint is not indicated in the constitution),' Diokno told Super Radyo dzBB. 'Bawal 'yung moves to convict. Ang oath ng mga senator-judge bilang senator-judge ay dinggin lang ang ebidensya at gawin lang ang paghuhusga kapag nadinig na ang ebidensya (Moves to convict are not allowed. The senator-judges took an oath to look at the evidence and judge when all of the pieces of evidence have been presented),' he added. Diokno made the statement after Senate President Francis Escudero said the Senate impeachment court may vote on the motion to dismiss Duterte's case. Earlier this week, Escudero said the Senate is a collegial body, and as an impeachment court, a decision can be placed through a simple majority vote. Escudero was referring to the constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the members of the Senate impeachment court is needed to convict the impeachable official under trial. 'Katawa-tawa' Meanwhile, incoming senator of the 20th congress Panfilo Lacson shared Diokno's opinion, noting that a motion to dismiss Duterte's case should come from the defense team and not from a senator sitting as a judge presiding over the impeachment proceedings. 'Sa akin, ang senator-judge hindi naman puwedeng mag-move to dismiss kasi judge eh. Saan ka naman nakakita ng huwes siya pa mismo magmo-move to dismiss eh kami rin 'yung made-decide? So, 'yung motion to dismiss mangagaling dapat 'yun sa defense,' Lacson said in a separate Super radyo dzBB interview. (For me, a senator-judge cannot move to dismiss since he is a judge. Where have you seen a judge who moves to dismiss when we're the ones who are supposed to hand down a decision? The motion to dismiss should come from the defense.) 'Ako maliwanag ako dun, hindi pwede mag move o mag submit ng motion to dismiss ang isang senator-judge kasi huwes kami. Hindi lang sa mali kung hindi improper, inappropriate, at katawa-tawa,' he added. (I'm clear that a senator-judge cannot move or submit a motion to dismiss since we're judges. It's not only wrong but also improper, inappropriate and ridiculous.) Duterte's impeachment complaint includes issues surrounding the use of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City. The complaint also includes her 'assassination' remarks against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez. On June 10, the Senate sitting as an impeachment court voted to return to the House of Representatives the articles of impeachment against Duterte without dismissing or terminating them. This came after senator-judge Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa, an ally of the Duterte family, even before the impeachment court convened, moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint against the Vice President. —RF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
House prosecutors welcome Ombudsman stand to await VP Sara trial result
Vice President Sara Duterte speaks to the media in Melbourne, Australia on June 22, 2025. Courtesy: Office of the Vice President video screenshot The House of Representatives prosecution panel backed the remarks made by Ombudsman Samuel Martires who said his office would wait for the outcome of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte before resolving her case. "Ang sinabi niya (Martires) ang kaniyang kapangyarihan lang ay mag-imbestiga, hindi ang mag-desisyon (He said his power is to investigate, not to decide on cases)," House prosecution panel spokesperson Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy said at the Saturday News Forum. "Aantayin niya ang kahihinatnan ng impeachment trial, which is tama (He will wait for the outcome of the impeachment trial, which is correct). I commend the Ombudsman for that," Bucoy said. In an interview on Friday regarding the issue, Martires said his office does not have the power to prosecute. Further, should the Senate impeachment court in favor of the Vice President, the Office of the Ombudsman may no longer pursue charges, according to Martires. Martires said, "The Ombudsman or any investigating body has to await the result of the impeachment proceeding." "But if the Vice President is acquitted by the impeachment court, wala kaming power to charge her (But if the Vice President is acquitted by the impeachment court, we have no power to charge her)," the Ombudsman said. Martires had also denied that he was out to sabotage the trial when his office acted on the report submitted by the House Committee on Good Governance and Public Accountability. On June 19, the Ombudsman asked Duterte to file her counter-affidavit to the alleged misuse of confidential funds of the Department of Education and the Office of the Vice President. Duterte filed her counter affidavit with the Ombudsman on Friday, June 27, 2025. The House of Representatives had submitted a committee report on June 16, alleging plunder, technical malversation, falsification, use of falsified documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. Also named as respondents were Edward Fajarda and Gina Acosta, Special Disbursing Officers; Assistant Secretary Atty. Sunshine Charry Fajarda, Director for Strategic Management Office; retired Major General Nolasco Mempin, Undersecretary for Administration; and Annalyn Sevilla, Undersecretary for Finance Service. All of them are from the Department of Education. Those charged from the Office of the Vice President were Atty. Zuleika Lopez, Undersecretary and Chief of Staff; Lemuel Ortonio, Assistant Chief of Staff; Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Nolasco, Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group; and Colonel Raymund Dante Lachia, Commander of Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group of the Philippine Army. Martires had said the investigation may take longer than the trial, adding that it may be up to the next Ombudsman to tackle the issue. "Mabuti nagsalita na si Ombudsman Martires that he is leaving it to the next Ombudsman to address the case… We welcome that because 'yun po ang tamang proseso eh," Bucoy said. (It's good that Ombudsman Martires stated that he is leaving it to the next Ombudsman to address the case… We welcome that because it is the proper process.) Martires is due to retire on July 27 after serving as Ombudsman for seven years. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
