House prosecutor after VP Sara says she'll address confi funds: Why only now?
"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
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
10 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
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
