Latest news with #Bucoy
GMA Network
8 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
SC a 'last resort' for House prosecutors if Senate junks VP Sara impeachment —spox
The House of Representatives Prosecution Panel would resort going to the Supreme Court (SC) on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte should the Senate move to dismiss the case, according to their spokesperson Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy. "Wala kaming ibang pupuntahan kasi ang SC lang ang final judge ng Constitutional issue of whether it is compliant with the Constitution or not,' Bucoy said at the Saturday News Forum. (We have nowhere else to go because the SC is the final judge of the Constitutional issue of whether it is compliant with the Constitution or not.) Bucoy made the remark after Duterte entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' In the 35-page answer ad cautelam (with caution) submitted by Duterte's camp to the Senate impeachment court on Monday, the Vice President argued that the fourth impeachment complaint must be dismissed for being illegal, saying that it violated the one-year bar rule under the 1987 Constitution. The House of Representatives prosecution panel, in response, asked the Senate impeachment court to reject Duterte's bid to dismiss the impeachment case against her, saying the severity of the charges requires no less than a full and transparent trial and her conviction. Should the Senate impeachment court rule in favor of the Vice President's appeal, Bucoy said the House prosecution would file before the Supreme Court a 'petition for certiorari with mandamus, questioning the exercise of abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.' ''Yun lang ang puwede namin i-akyat eh, 'yung grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction… mandamus for the [Supreme] Court to compel the [Senate] court to try it,' he said. (That's all we can do. The grave abuse of discretion amounts to a lack of jurisdiction… mandamus for the Supreme Court to compel the Senate court to proceed with the trial.) 'The only thing the SC can do is either reverse or modify 'yung kanilang decision,' he added. (The SC can either reverse or modify the decision.) Motion Senate President Francis Escudero on Wednesday said that the Senate impeachment court may vote on the motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte if a senator-judge makes such a submission. 'Wala namang bawal na motion... Asan ba 'yung provision sa Saligang Batas o sa Rules on Impeachment na bawal ang ganito o ganyang klaseng motion? Hindi mo namang pwedeng pigilan,' Escudero said in a press conference. (There is no prohibited motion. Where is the law, constitutional provision, or Rules of Impeachment that a certain motion is prohibited? You cannot stop someone from making a motion.) Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa had moved in the plenary for the dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment, but his motion was eventually amended so that the complaint be returned to the House of Representatives pending a couple of certifications. 'Constitutional crisis' Bucoy, meanwhile, warned that it would become a 'constitutional crisis' if the Senate refuses to follow what the Supreme Court's decision would be. 'There will be a constitutional crisis kung nag utos ang SC at ayaw sumunod then we have a crisis, pero I doubt kung hindi sila susunod," he said. This, as Bucoy stressed the importance of proceeding with the trial. 'Para sa amin, mahalaga na magkaroon ng paglilitis, kahit na i-acquit niyo yan, basta naipakita namin sa bayan ang mga ebidensya namin sa lahat ng krimen na ginawa niya,' he said. (For us, it is important to have a trial, even if you acquit her, as long as we have shown the people our evidence for all the crimes she committed.) 'Bayan na ang maghuhusga sa inyo. Pero babalikan ko ulit, nagtitiwala pa rin kami sa proseso dahil ito haka-haka pa rin. Malalaman natin sa susunod na mga araw kung tama ang ating pag agam-agam,' he added. (Let the people be the judge. Again, we still trust the process because this is still speculation. We will know in the coming days if our doubts are correct.) 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. Bucoy also said that the House prosecution team has not yet discussed whether it will file a motion for inhibition against senator-judges who have expressed biases in the case. 'I think there's growing opinion… it's gaining ground na 'wag na lang.' Malilihis na naman eh. Pangalawa, it will only compound our numbers issues,' he said. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
4 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
House prosecution: Ombudsman must wait for impeachment court verdict on VP Sara
Ombudsman Samuel Martires must wait for the Senate impeachment court's verdict on Vice President Sara Duterte before deciding whether she should face criminal prosecution, the House prosecution panel said. The Office of the Ombudsman must wait for the verdict of the Senate impeachment court on Vice President Sara Duterte before deciding whether she should face criminal prosecution, as stated in Ombudsman law, the House prosecution panel said Tuesday. House prosecution panel spokesperson Antonio Audie Bucoy made the response when asked if Ombudsman Samuel Martires should defer to the Senate impeachment court in light of his ordering the Vice President to answer allegations of criminal activities. These allegations, which include technical malversation of public funds, plunder, and falsification of public documents, were first revealed during the House panel inquiry into her office's budget use, including P612.5 million worth of confidential funds from 2022 to 2023. "The impeachment proceedings is of primordial consideration," Bucoy said in a press conference. "'Yan ho ang pinakamataas na antas tungo sa [hakbang na] panagutin ang impeachable official. Under the Ombudsman Act, Republic Act 6770, meron hong dalawang provisions doon na sinasabi na ang Ombudsman ay hindi pwedeng imbestigahan ang impeachable official because sapagkat ang mekanismo na nakasaad sa saligang batas [ay] impeachment, na ang may jurisdiction ay ang Senado, sitting as an impeachment court,' he said, referring to Section 21 of the Ombudsman law. (The impeachment is the highest ranked accountability tool for an impeachable official. The Ombudsman Act has two provisions stating that the Ombudsman cannot investigate an impeachable official because the process for that is impeachment, which is under the jurisdiction of the Senate impeachment court.) 'Pangalawa, meron din diyan provision na nagsasabi kung iimbestigahan, maaaring imbestigahan ng Ombudsman ang impeachable official kapag ang layunin nito ay mag-file ng verified impeachment complaint. Yun lang ho,' Bucoy added, referring to Section 22 of the Ombudsman law. (Secondly, the same law states that if the Ombudsman will investigate an impeachable official, the goal must be to file a verified impeachment complaint. That's it.) These Ombudsman law provisions, Bucoy said, only supports the prosecution's position and the Constitutional provisions providing for the immediate start of the impeachment trial and the Ombudsman holding in abeyance any investigation on the Vice President. 'Nag-acquire na ng jurisdiction ang [Senate] impeachment court [on the impeachment complaint], [so] the Ombudsman should await the outcome of the impeachment proceedings. The Ombudsman should take a backseat and tignan niya yung ano 'yung evidence yang ilalahad during the trial,' Bucoy said. (The Senate already required jurisdiction on the impeachment complaint, so the Ombudsman should await the outcome of the impeachment proceedings. The Ombudsman should see the evidence to be presented during the impeachment trial.) 'Dapat ho, bigyan ng pagkakataon ang impeachment court na iisulong yung paglilitis hanggang ito ay matapos,' Bucoy added. (The Ombudsman should give the Senate impeachment court the chance to proceed with the trial until it reaches a verdict.) The June 19 Ombudsman order requiring the Vice President to comment on allegations 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 identified the House good government and public accountability panel which investigated her budget use as the complainant. The House good government and public accountability panel, however, did not file a complaint against the Vice President before the Office of the Ombudsman. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
4 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
20-06-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
House prosecution says impeachment court spox should not speak for VP Sara
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol should speak for the court, not for the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte, House prosecution panel spokesperson and lawyer Antonio Bucoy said Friday. Bucoy was reacting to Tongol's comments on Thursday when he said that there is a high chance that the Vice President will make a motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint. Tongol said, 'Ang action na ini-expect natin from the defense by filing an ad cautelam appearance—na magpa-file sila ng either answer with affirmative defense questioning the jurisdiction, or a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.' (We expect the defense to question the jurisdiction of file a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.) 'As spokesperson, he is the mouthpiece of the court. He expresses the mindset of the court. [But] he's telegraphing the defense to file a motion to dismiss,' Bucoy told GMA News Online in a text message. 'Recall that the partiality of some members of the court had already been raised as an issue. I priorly stated that while I am prepared to give the judges the benefit of a doubt, the spokesperson's subject statement convinces me otherwise,' Bucoy added. House spokesperson Princess Abante agreed. 'Do not speak for the defense. Speak for the impeachment court,' Abante said of Tongol. 'That is why we are saying that what we want is a Senate impeachment court that is ready to accept the evidence, listen to the evidence and decide based on the evidence presented,' Abante added. In a "24 Oras" report by Saleema Refran, Tongol said, "Hindi pag-aabogado sa isang panig o paglilito sa publiko ngunit pagsagot lamang sa scenario setting na tanong sa akin nang naayon sa aking karanasan sa litigation." "Ito ay bahagi ng ating tungkulin hindi lamang bilang spokesperson ngunit bilang abogado rin upang ipaliwanang ang legal proceedings sa lahat," he also said. "The Impeachment Court is committed to neutrality, fairness and due process. Respect for the court is fundamental to democracy, so it is vital for the stability of this democracy for all to work together with mutual respect…and for litigants to avoid unnecessary attacks that only serve to hinder our collective efforts to proceed with the impeachment process," Tongol added. In a separate statement, House lead prosecutor and 4Ps party-list Representative Marcelino Libanan commended the senator-judges who uphold decorum and refrain from public commentary, but he did not mention names. 'We commend our senator-judges who have chosen the high road of restraint. Silence, in the context of an ongoing trial, is not passivity—it is professionalism,' Libanan said. 'In this highly charged political moment, those who speak least may actually understand the gravity of their judicial role the most. They recognize that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is a constitutional tribunal—not a venue for political theater," Libanan added. Libanan then cited the Constitution's demand for neutrality from judges in any legal or quasi-legal proceeding. 'Every statement a judge makes outside the courtroom is a potential challenge to fairness inside it. The discipline shown by some senators is therefore not just admirable—it's essential,' Libanan said. 'We urge all senator-judges to uphold the same level of discretion. Let the facts and the Constitution—not noise—shape the outcome of this process,' he added. Over 200 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment complaint against Vice President on February 5, accusing her of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
The Star
19-06-2025
- Politics
- The Star
No issue with House refusal of Sara Duterte lawyers' papers, says prosecution spokesman
Reginald Tongol (left) and Antonio Bucoy. - Photo from Regie Tongol & Associates Law and Communications Facebook page and video screengrab MANILA: The House of Representatives' decision not to receive the entry of appearance made by Vice President Sara Duterte's lawyers for the impeachment trial should not result in any issue, prosecution spokesman Antonio Bucoy said. In his first-ever press briefing held on Tuesday (June 17), Bucoy was asked why the House supposedly refused to receive the entry of appearance sent by the defence counsel on Monday (June 16) afternoon. Bucoy admitted that he does not know the exact reason, but noted that this should not be an issue, because the phrase 'tender copy refuse to receive' indicates that it was as if the document was received. 'I would like to clarify. I do not know the reason why. But the bottom line is that nobody was hurt, there was no damage. Because when they tendered the service of the entry of appearance, tender means you are constructively served. So, regardless of whether they accept it or not, the purpose was served because it was tendered. So as if you received it,' he explained. ''When it is tendered, the document is left with the chamber. The term 'tender' was used because they did not acknowledge that they had already received it. Nonetheless, like what I said, no harm, no foul. Nobody was hurt here, nobody was aggrieved,' he added. According to Bucoy, he is not sure whether the recent circumstances surrounding the impeachment proceedings have led to an impediment — which may be a reason why the House did not receive the entry of appearance. 'Now I do not know if there was an impediment or none that's why the entry was not accepted, or what is the exact reason why it was not accepted. But like I said earlier, no harm, no foul because the service […] was tendered so as if it was received. There is no damage,' he added. On Monday night, Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol confirmed that Duterte's counsel has entered its appearance, with 16 lawyers defending her — including those from the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm. However, Tongol said that the House was 'indicated in page 3 to have been copy furnished as well today at 3.42pm, but has a note 'Tender Copy refuse to receive.'' Tongol said in an interview with DZMM on Tuesday that the House's refusal to accept the document may delay the impeachment proceedings. Duterte was impeached last February 5, after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified impeachment complaint against her. The articles of impeachment were immediately sent to the Senate as the Article XI, Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that a trial should proceed forthwith if one-thirds of House members file the complaint. As one-third of 306 House members is 102, the requirement was fulfilled. However, trial did not start as the articles of impeachment were not sent to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break. And when the proceedings were supposed to start last June 3, the Senate eventually approved a motion to remand the articles back to the House, due to alleged constitutional infirmities. The House prosecution team, however, said that they will defer acceptance of the returned articles, and will file a motion seeking clarification as one of the Senate's requests — a certification from the 20th Congress that they will pursue the impeachment — cannot be complied with now. Duterte's impeachment was hinged on different issues, like allegations of confidential fund misuse within her offices which were uncovered during the hearing of the House committee on good government and public accountability, and threats to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez assassinated. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
