Latest news with #ArticlesofImpeachment
Daily Express
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Express
Impeachment panel dismisses Sara's plea
Published on: Sunday, June 29, 2025 Published on: Sun, Jun 29, 2025 By: Philstar Text Size: Sara Duterte MANILA: After Vice President Sara Duterte asked the impeachment court to dismiss the charges against her, the House prosecution panel submitted its response, debunking her claims and accusing her of forum shopping and misleading the court. 'Public officials must be held accountable impeachable offenses. Only exchanges of civility and a formal examination of evidence before an impartial court is required. The Filipino people have a fundamental right to witness this process unfold,' the prosecution said in their reply. 'No bloodbath is necessary. Let the trial begin,' they added. Here's a breakdown of how the House prosecutors negated Sara's claims in her response: The Senate did not have the Articles of Impeachment. House says: The Senate itself said the impeachment was not dismissed. The prosecution called this claim 'false.' They argued that the Senate returning the articles does not mean it gave up jurisdiction over the trial. 'The fact that respondent Duterte was able to file an Answer As Cautelam contravenes her arguments. It is rather strange for respondent Sara to argue that the Honorable Impeachment court did not have in its possession of the Articles of Impeachment when she admitted having received the same,' the prosecution said. The Senate's order was also clear: the Articles of Impeachment were returned to the House without dismissing or terminating the case. The House prosecutor pointed out that the only time constraint the Constitution imposes on impeachment is the one-year ban on initiating another complaint. The Supreme Court also recognized in Pimentel Jr. v. Joint Committee of Congress that there is a distinction between Congress' legislative and non-legislative functions. 'When the Senate sits as an impeachment court, it does not become functus officio, even if its composition changes,' the prosecution said. 'Functus officio' means that there would be no legal authority to act. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
GMA Network
2 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
House prosecutors ask Senate: Junk VP Sara's bid to dismiss impeach raps
The House of Representatives prosecution panel asked Friday the Senate impeachment court to reject Vice President Sara Duterte's bid to dismiss the impeachment case against her, saying the severity of the charges require no less than a full and transparent trial and her conviction. The prosecution panel made the assertion in its response to Duterte's answer ad cautelam, wherein she called the verified impeachment complaint against her a mere "scrap of paper." Lawyer Regie Tongol, spokesperson of the Senate impeachment court, confirmed receipt of the House prosecutors reply at 1:38 p.m. Friday. Prosecutors said the articles of impeachment against Duterte "are thoroughly drafted and contains sufficient allegations and evidence justifying a full-blown trial." In addition, prosecutors said the House of Representatives is not required to hold committee hearings with respondent Duterte's participation if it initiates impeachment by direct resolution of at least one-third of all of its members, which was met by the House in this case since over 200 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment complaint. "The Honorable Impeachment Court should reject respondent Duterte's desire for a dismissal without trial. A trial is not only warranted but necessary to reinforce justice… and affirm that no individual–regardless of rank or influence–stands above the law," the House prosecution panel said. It also branded as "false" Duterte's claims that there are no articles of impeachment currently with the Senate impeachment tribunal since it ordered the return of the same to the House. "The Honorable Impeachment Court should ignore respondent's claims that are tantamount to a motion to dismiss, including her prayer to resolve her affirmative defenses, and proceed to trial as directed by the plain text and meaning of the Constitution. These Articles of Impeachment highlight respondent Duterte's unfitness for public office. The gravity of the allegations and the public leave no room for technical evasion," the panel added. "Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Impeachment Court proceed to trial, render a judgment of conviction against respondent Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte, decree her removal from the Office of the Vice President, and order her perpetual disqualification from holding any public office in the Republic of the Philippines," it said. Duterte is accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly over alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and for threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza and his Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte, among others. The Vice President has denied the allegations. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
3 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
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
GMA Network
5 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
House prosec: VP Sara's answer to impeach raps has no factual basis
Vice President Sara Duterte's answer to the allegations against her in the impeachment complaint submitted to the Senate impeachment court has no factual basis, the House prosecution panel said Tuesday. House prosecution panel spokesperson Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy was referring to the answer ad cautelam (with caution) filed by the Vice President on Monday asking the Senate impeachment court to junk the impeachment complaint against her mainly for violating the one year bar rule, the constitutional provision which only allows one complaint to be filed against an impeachable official in a year. In the same answer, the Vice President said there is no impeachment complaint to begin with since the Senate impeachment court ordered the return of the Articles of Impeachment to the House of Representatives. 'Ad cautelam is for caution. So, ibig sabihin, hindi pa niya tinatanggap o kinikilala ang hurisdiksyon ng impeachment court. Sapagkat ayon sa rules, 'pag ikaw ay nag-file ng special appearance, dapat ilahad mo ang dahilan kung bakit mo kine-question ang jurisdiksyon ng husgado. Ang ginawa ng Pangalawang Pangulo, nag-file lang ng ad cautelam, entry of appearance, pero walang sinasabi kung anong dahilan,' Bucoy said at a press conference. (She has yet to recognize the jurisdiction of the impeachment court. Based on the rules, if you file a special appearance, you state why you are questioning the jurisdiction of the court. What they did was simply file an ad cautelam answer without explaining why.) ''Yung kanyang sagot, wala ho siyang factual nor legal grounds ukol roon sa mga factual allegations ng impeachment complaint. It was all procedural [arguments]. This is wagging the dog, mas pinapalitaw na mas importante ang procedure kesa constitutional law and principles, substance. Ang importante is the substance. Those who cannot address the substance, they rely on technical procedures, which is what she did here,' Bucoy added. (She did not cite facts or legal grounds to answer allegations in the impeachment it appear as if procedure was better than substance. What is important is the substance.) Bucoy also stressed that the impeachment complaint against the Vice President is fully compliant with the constitutional limit of one complaint per year because the three prior impeachment complaints against the Vice President were never initiated, meaning referred to the House Committee on Justice for deliberations. Bucoy was referring to the three impeachment complaints filed by different groups and endorsed by various lawmakers against the Vice President in December 2024, mainly alleging betrayal of public trust due to the alleged misuse of over P612 million of confidential funds. The impeachment complaints were filed after the House good government and public accountability inquiry revealed that based on the submissions of Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education under Vice President Duterte's tenure as Education chief to the Commission on Audit, the OVP and DepEd liquidated the P612 million of confidential funds it received from 2022 to 2023 with acknowledgement receipts containing wrong dates, signatories with no birth records, unnamed signatures, non-readable signatories, among others. These three complaints, however, were not forwarded by the House Secretary General Reginald Velasco to the Office of the Speaker, Leyte Representative Martin Romualdez, a requirement for the complaint to be scheduled for House Committee on Justice-level deliberation. A fourth impeachment complaint, however, was filed in February and gathered over 200 lawmakers as endorsers or way higher than one-third of all the House members needed for the complaint to be sent directly to the Senate for trial as stated in the 1987 Constitution. 'Under the [impeachment] rules po, and decided cases of the Supreme Court, initiation happens when the impeachment complaint is endorsed to the House Committee on Justice. This did not happen in the first three impeachment complaints,' Bucoy said. 'Now, this [fourth and] current impeachment complaint, hindi na kinakailangan dumaan doon because it was already endorsed by more than one-third of the House members. In that case, the impeachment complaint becomes the articles of impeachment itself. So, hindi ho na-violate yung one-year bar rule because 'yung tatlong impeachment complaint, hindi ho nakaabot eh doon sa referral to the Committee on Justice,' Bucoy added. (The fourth impeachment complaint never needed to be referred to the House justice panel because it has been endorsed by more than one-third of all House members. Ergo, the one year bar rule was not violated because the first three impeachment complaints were never referred to the House Committee on Justice.) GMA News Online has reached out to the Vice President for comment and will publish it as soon as it is available. Duterte has since denied the allegations against her. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
21-06-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
Ombudsman on House panel saying it did not file complaint vs. VP Sara: Then why give us committee report copy?
Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Saturday questioned the House why its committee gave them a copy of its report on its investigation into the allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte. This was after House spokesperson Princess Abante on Friday said the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability did not file a criminal and administrative complaint against Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman. "Eh bakit ba nila kami fu-furnish-an ng kopya ng result ng kanilang investigation? Ano 'yun, gagawin naming ano, pardon the word, pero ano 'yun, gagawin naming scratch paper? Ano 'yon? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives kaya hindi kami dapat furnish-an ng kopya," Martires said in an interview on Dobol B TV. (Then why did they furnish us a copy of the result of their investigation? What is that? Do they expect us to, pardon the word, use it as scratch paper? What's that? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives so we should not have been furnished a copy [of the report].) Abante made the clarification in light of the Office of the Ombudsman's June 19 order asking Duterte to answer complaints of technical malversation, falsification, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. The Ombudsman order identified the House good government and public accountability panel as the complainant. 'Unang una, hindi ang House ang nag-file ng (First of all, the House did not file the) complaint. What the House initiated was the impeachment trial through the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment,' Abante said in a press conference. Abante said that the House only furnished Martires a copy of the recommendations of the panel resulting from its inquiry on the budget use of Duterte, including the disbursement of confidential funds. Confused? Martires meanwhile on Saturday said Abante may just have been confused. "Siguro naguguluhan lang sila o naguguluhan lang 'yung spokesperson. Ang nag-endorse sa amin ng committee report ng House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability ay ang Secretary General mismo. At sinasabi ng Secretary General, sa kanyang sulat, na itong committee report ni Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives," he said. (Maybe they are just confused or the spokesperson is confused. The one who endorsed to us the committee report of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability is the Secretary General himself. And the Secretary General said in his letter that the committee report of Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives.) READ: House adopts panel report urging plunder, other raps vs. Sara Duterte "So ang naging complainant dito na ginawa namin is the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. 'Yun. So sino ang gagawin naming complainant?" Martires said. (So we made the complainant the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. That's it. So who should we make as complainant?) Martires cited the Pharmally case in connection with the government's purchase of P4 billion worth of RT-PCR test kits. "If we remember the Pharmally case, it was not even a committee report kasi hindi lahat ng mga senador ay nag-concur kay (because not all senators concurred with) Senador Richard Gordon at sa (and with the) committee report. It is just considered as a mere result of an investigation of the Blue Ribbon Committee," he said. "Ang naging complainant du'n ay sina [former] Senador Gordon at Senador Risa Hontiveros (The complainants there became Senator Gordon and Senator Risa Hontiveros), representing the Blue Ribbon Committee," Martires said. He said he did not even hear a whisper thereafter from Gordon asking why he was made the complainant. "Si Senadora Imee, nag-file din ng kaso 'di ba, lately lang. Sino ang complainant du'n? (Senator Imee also filed a case recently. Who was the complainant?) 'Yung Senate Committee on Foreign Relations represented by Imee Marcos," the Ombudsman said. "Eh dito, sino ang magiging complainant? Alangan namang kami ang complainant? Hindi kami ang nag-imbestiga ng kaso," Martires said. (In this case, who will be the complainant? It can't be us. We did not investigate the case.) "Nanggaling sa kanila at detalyado ang (It came from them and it detailed the) offenses that were allegedly committed by the Vice President and some of the employees and officers of DepEd [Department of Education] and the Office of the Vice President," he added. Martires said the House panel's committee report "was treated as a complaint." He explained further: "Wala naman kaming pinagkaiba sa piskalya sa public prosecutor's office ng Department of Justice. Kapag nag-file ka ng reklamo sa prosecutor's office, ikaw ang nagrereklamo at hindi 'yung piskal." (It is not any different from a fiscal at the public prosecutor's office of the Department of Justice. When you file a complaint at the prosecutor's office, you are the one complaining, not the fiscal.) "Pero kung finile ng piskal 'yung iyong reklamo, nakita niya may katuturan, may katotohanan, finile sa husgado, ang nagrereklamo du'n ay hindi na 'yung complainant kundi ang People of the Philippines," Martires added. (But if the fiscal filed the case because he saw it was relevant and truthful, and he filed it in court, the complainant will not be the person but the People of the Philippines.) GMA News Online contacted Abante to get her comment but has yet to receive a reply as of posting time. Probe to continue The Ombudsman will continue the investigation into the allegations against Duterte, he said. "Itutuloy namin ang imbestigasyon [kay Vice Pres. Duterte]. Para ano at binigyan kami ng kopya ng report ng investigation. Para ano? Para basahin lang namin?" Martires said. (We will continue the probe. For what purpose were we given a copy of the report of the investigation? For what? For us just to read?) "Diretso ang aming imbestigasyon," he added. (We will continue with our investigation.) "Bibigyan namin ang Kamara ng (We will give the House) sufficient time to file also their pledge from the time that they received a copy of the counter affidavit of the Vice President and the other respondents," Martires said. If the House committee does not want to cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman, then they may have to use their power to cite them in contempt, he said. "Kung ayaw nilang makipag-cooperate sa amin, we might be forced, mapipilitan kami na gamitin ang aming power to cite them in contempt," Martires said. (If they do not want to cooperate with us, we might be forced to use our power to cite them in contempt.) "Hindi kami nagbibiro. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng taumbayan. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng Konstitusyon... Ano, bibigyan kami ng sulat, nirereklamo mo isang barangay captain, ano, babasahin lang namin?" he added. (We are not joking. This is a job given to us by the public. It is our duty given by the Constitution. If we will be given a letter of complaint against a barangay captain, will we just read it [and not do anything]?) Asked who will be cited in contempt in this matter, Martires said: "Aba'y 'di kung sino ang ayaw mag-... (Whoever does not want...) Kasi this is a committee represented by Representative Joel Chua. So we'll ask Representative Joel Chua once the Vice President or any of the respondents there will file their counter affidavit. We will ask the committee kung gusto nilang mag-file (if they want to file a) ng reply. Kung hindi (If not), it will be submitted now for resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman." If the committee does not want to file a reply, the Ombudsman will then consider them having waived their right to reply. "Ngayon 'pag sinabi nilang, 'Ay hindi naman kami nag-file sa inyo,' if they insist on doing that, ay siguro naman... I am not threatening them, eh siguro hindi na ito magandang relasyon between the House of Representatives at Office of the Ombudsman na ayaw nating mangyari," Martires said. (Now if they say, 'But we did not file [the complaint with you], if they insist on doing that, then maybe... I am not threatening them, maybe this signifies a not so good relationship between the House of Representatives and the Office of the Ombudsman that we do not want to see.) "I think they should cooperate with us because they are the ones na kumbaga sa ano, kinalabit kami, kiniliti kami (we were the ones contacted)," he added. Ample time Martires said once Duterte and the other respondents give their counter affidavit, the House of Representatives will be furnished a copy. "Sila mismo, si Vice President mismo ang magfu-furnish ng copy sa kanila," he said. (The Office of the Vice President will furnish them a copy.) But what if Duterte says why should I give my counter affidavit to the Ombudsman when there is no complainant? Martires replied: "E tingnan natin kung ano ang kahihinatnan (then let's see what would happen)." "Hindi namin puwedeng isantabi, we cannot close our eyes, hindi namin puwedeng ipikit ang aming mga mata na merong isang reklamo na ibinigay sa amin, 'di ba," he said. (We cannot ignore it, we cannot close our eyes to a complaint given to us, right?) "Hindi pa kami umaabot du'n sa puntos ng pagde-determine ng probable cause. Nakita lang namin du'n sa report na may sufficient na ebidensiya. So gusto naming sagutin ng mga respondent. We advised Vice President Sara 'yung nakasaad sa report na 'yun," Martires said. (We have not yet reached the point where we will determine if there is probable cause. We just saw in the report that there is sufficient evidence. So we want the respondents to give their response. We advised Vice President Sara that this is what is in the report.) "Du'n kami magde-determine, based on counter affidavit at du'n sa report. Pag-aaralan namin. If there is a probable cause, then we will make that determination later on," he added. (That's where we will determine [if there is probable cause], based on the counter affidavit and the report. We will study them.) Martires said they have not received word yet from the Office of the Vice President on whether the respondents will submit a counter affidavit. "Wala naman (No, we haven't received any word). Although natanggap na ng (But it was received by the) Office of the Vice President. Siguro naman (Maybe) they will submit the counter affidavit within that period of 10 days," he said. The OVP said it received the Ombudsman's order at about 9 a.m. Friday, June 20. —with a report from Jamil Santos/KG, GMA Integrated News
