No rules violated in VP Sara impeachment —House exec insists
"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
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
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
a day ago
- GMA Network
Senators push for law vs. political dynasties
At least three senators have filed bills for the incoming 20th Congress seeking to prohibit political dynasties in the Philippines. Senators Robin Padilla and Panfilo 'Ping' Lacson included in their respective top 10 bills the proposed measures on anti-political dynasty. Meanwhile, Senator Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan filed the same as listed in his second set of priority legislative measures for the upcoming Congress. Pangilinan said that the Anti-Political Dynasty Act, which aims to provide equal access to opportunities for public office and public service to any qualified Filipino, is a 'long time coming.' Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro earlier said that President Ferdinand ''Bongbong'' Marcos Jr. will study the refiled bills in Congress, including the proposed measures on anti-political dynasty. An anti-political dynasty bill was also recently refiled at the House of Representatives by the Makabayan bloc. Under House Bill 209 filed by ACT Teachers Party-list Representative Antonio Tinio and Kabataan Party-list Representative, a political dynasty is defined as a family or clan that concentrates, consolidates, or perpetuates their political power by holding public office simultaneously or successively. The bill states that no person shall hold or run for any elective national or local office simultaneously with another within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, whether legitimate or illegitimate, full or half blood. It adds that no person within the prohibited civil degree of relationship to an incumbent elected official shall immediately succeed to the position of the latter.—AOL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order after US Supreme Court ruling
People protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2025. Jim Watson/ AFP CONCORD, New Hampshire — A federal judge on Thursday has again barred US President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship across the country after the US Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions. US District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by the implementation of Trump's directive. Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally. The question of whether to issue an injunction was "not a close call," he said, noting children could be deprived of US citizenship if Trump's order took effect. "That's irreparable harm, citizenship alone," he said. "It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.' The judge said he would stay his ruling for seven days to allow the Trump administration to appeal and would issue a written decision by the end of the day. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Under the Supreme Court's decision, Trump's executive order had been set to take effect on July 27. The ACLU and others had filed the suit just hours after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling, powered by its conservative majority, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump's directive. The suit was filed on behalf of non-US citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected. Class actions Looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court's ruling, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the decision allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits. The three judges who issued nationwide injunctions found that Trump's directive likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The amendment states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The Justice Department has argued that Trump's order conforms with the Constitution and has asked Laplante to find that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a class. The Supreme Court's ruling did not address the legal merits of Trump's order, which the Republican president issued as part of his hardline immigration agenda on his first day back in office in January. Trump's order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if it takes effect nationally, according to Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who have challenged it. Universal injunctions The Supreme Court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of the three injunctions that had blocked Trump's order from being enforced anywhere in the country against anyone after finding judges lack the authority to issue so-called "universal injunctions" that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge. Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump's agenda found to be unlawful. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions. Immigrant rights advocates launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who in a related case also concluded in February that Trump's order was likely unconstitutional. Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruled that Trump's order contradicted the 14th Amendment and a 1898 Supreme Court ruling interpreting it. In that case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby's parents. Laplante agreed at the time that an injunction was warranted, saying that "the denial of citizenship to the plaintiffs' members' children would render the children either undocumented noncitizens or stateless entirely." But Laplante limited the scope of his order to members of the three immigrant rights nonprofit organizations who pursued the case before him. Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday urged Laplante to go further by certifying a nationwide class of babies and their parents who would be affected by Trump's order, saying that absent a court order thousands of families nationally would be unprotected. Laplante noted during Thursday's hearing that he was the one judge who had not issued a nationwide injunction in his previous ruling on Trump's order. "It's a better process to narrow these decisions and not have judges create national policy," he said. "That said, the Supreme Court suggested a class action is a better option.' Trump's administration countered that the three noncitizens parents and expectant parents seeking to serve as lead plaintiffs have immigration statuses that are too different to be able to pursue a single class action together and that an injunction at this time would "short-circuit" the usual lengthier process required for them to obtain relief. — Reuters
