MANILA - A spokesperson for the House prosecution clapped back at the Vice President Sara Duterte’s claim that “bending the law is very clear in the impeachment proceedings” against her.
Kabataan Party List Rep. Renee Co described the VP’s statement as “beating a dead horse” and pointed out that what may be considered a clear “bending of the law” is the confidential expenses of the two offices Duterte held.
“’Yung mas nakakita nating clear evidence of bent laws ay ‘yung napakaraming ebidensya ng anomalya sa paggasta ng Confidential and Intelligence Funds ng Office of the Vice President and Department of Education. Imagine ‘yung thousands of acknowledgement receipts submitted to support their audit report, ni isang official receipt, walang nakita. And marami rin po tayong acknowledgement receipts nakalagay ang paggasta gamit for medicine, for safe houses. Clear naman po sa joint memo na hindi po ‘yun acceptable use of Confidential and Intelligence Funds,” Co said.
Two other spokespersons for the House prosecution, Robert Ace Barbers and Atty. Benjamin Tolosa asserted the Supreme Court has already settled the issues thrown at the House impeachment proceedings, and recognized the authority of both chambers of Congress in the impeachment process.
“Saan banda na mayroong bending of the law? Kung ang tinutukoy dito ay itong proseso ng impeachment, nagsalita na ang ating Korte Suprema at sinabing ito ay sang-ayon sa ating Saligang Batas… ‘yung ginawang clarificatory hearing sa House of Representatives. So, hindi ko matumbok kung saan ‘yung sinasabing mayroong bending of the law,” Barbers said.
He also questioned the sincerity of the OVP to liquidate the confidential funds.
“Since 2022, it seems that wala pa rin sincere effort to liquidate. Kasi 2026 na ngayon. At kung mayroon talagang recipient ‘yung confidential and intelligence funds na ‘yan… bakit acknowledgement receipts? (12:13) The liquidation requirements, which are listed or spelled out in the Joint Circular were still not followed.
So bakit ganoon? (JC) Ito ba ay deliberate na paraan para to create confusion,” Barbers said.
'CASTS DOUBTS
Duterte’s “bending the law” allegation “casts doubts” on the credibility of the impeachment process and the institutions constitutionally mandated to carry it out, according to Tolosa.
“I really find it troubling… This sweeping accusation necessarily casts doubts on the integrity of this constitutional process… Not just the process itself, but the impeachment court, and of course ultimately the presiding officer” he said.
“It's concerning because it undermines the people's trust and confidence in this constitutional institution. As a lawyer, as an officer of the court, I feel that it's my duty also to defend the impeachment court. Dahil ang laking problema ‘yun kung mapapaniwala ang mga kababayan natin na hindi maayos ang nangyayari dito sa impeachment proceedings dahil mayroong madaming paglabag ng batas na ginagawa dito sa impeachment proceedings. Mahirap po ‘yan kung mawawala ng tiwala ang mga kababayan natin dito sa proseso na ito. And quite ironically, I'm sure the Vice President should know that she should respect this constitutional accountability mechanism. At lalo na ang pinag-uusapan pa naman dito sa Articles of Impeachment, ang charges sa kanya, ay culpable violation of the Constitution… Instead of attacking the integrity of the institution and the proceedings, baka mas maganda po siguro sagutin ng diretsahan ‘yung mabibigat na akusasyon dito sa Articles of Impeachment,” Tolosa added.
“The presiding officer has been fair to both parties. So we think this is uncalled for. But we will leave it to the judicious discretion of the presiding officer on how would they appreciate this if it constitutes an attack on the integrity of the constitutional process and the constitutional institution of the impeachment court,” he noted.
“Dismayado po ako bilang lawyer din… VP Sara Duterte is also a fellow lawyer at several years na rin po siya sa kanyang profession… Hindi po basta-basta nagbibitaw ng ganitong salita.Dapat po may ebidensya,” Co, for her part, said.
Asked about what the range of actions that the impeachment court can take regarding Duterte’s statements, the prosecution spokespersons gave this response.
“Maaari po ‘yung contempt. Maaari din po just generally i-address siya during the proceedings of the next trial date. Pero, totoo kasi na we're here kasi may proseso ng pananagutan na gusto nating matapos.Kung at every turn ay may naririnig tayong pag-undermine ng process na ‘yun sa nakasalang sa mismong paglilitis, that puts into question kung gaano po ba nirerespeto ng public official na ‘yun, si VP Sara here, ‘yung prosesp na ito, ‘yung authority ng lahat ng mga nakasalang dito, at syempre, at the end of the day, ‘yung mamamayan,” Co said.
"I don't know what's worse, the merits or attacking the institution, the proceedings itself. But again, at the end of the day, we leave it again to the discretion, determination of the presiding officer and the impeachment court,” Tolosa added.
Co expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will not interfere in the impeachment trial and respect the rules of the Senate Impeachment Court, if the matter is raised before it.
BIASED?
The impeachment court presiding officer should remind senator-judges of their duty to remain impartial, according to Barbers.
He issued the statement after Palace Press Officer Claire Castro called out on Thursday some senator-judges for supposedly acting like defense counsels in Duterte’s impeachment trial, and reminded them that their duty is not to “sweep the truth” under the rug.
“Maraming nawalis doon sa Senado. Ang daming nawalis. So para sa akin, the judges must always be impartial and will not show any bias… Dapat magtanong sila para maliwanagan, hindi lamang ang taumbayan kundi ang mismong ating mga senator-judges on the evidence being presented before them... Sa kanilang pagtatanong ng clarification, hindi po dapat nagpapakita ng bias. Kung mayroong mga ganoon, I think they should be reminded by the presiding officer of the rules… The whole nation is watching... So I guess the presiding officer must remind them of their duty to remain impartial in this issue,” Barbers said.
“We respect the authority and power of the senator-judges to ask clarificatory questions. And we also trust in the presiding officer's judicious discretion in determining if the questions being asked are material and relevant to the issues at hand,” Tolosa, for his part, said.
Castro also said on Thursday that a member of the Senate impeachment court insisting that only the special disbursing officer (SDO) should be held accountable for any possible misuse of the Office of the Vice President's confidential funds shows “bias”.
“Hindi natin pwedeng masabi that the buck stops at just the special disbursing officer. Mayroon at mayroon pong responsibility yung higher commanding officer,” Co explained.
On Duterte’s visit to detained senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada, Barbers said it is her right to visit her friends, but also issued a reminder.
“Karapatan niya ‘yan, bisitahin ‘yung kanyang kaibigan… But again, let us remind the senator-judges na maging impartial at ang kanilang gagawing desisyon,” he said.
“We have complete confidence in the evidence… ‘Yung ginagawa ni VP Duterte or even the senator-judges in their spare time, hindi po siya nagfa-factor in sa discussion,” Co said.
POPULARITY SURVEYS
Popularity surveys should not influence the impeachment trial, which is an accountability mechanism, according to Barbers.
“Popularity will not in any way affect nor influence nor perhaps… makasira dito sa pagpapatuloy nitong paglilitis na ito.. Kailangan nakatutok tayo dito sa ebidensya, yung ating panawagan na maging impartial ang ating mga hukom, nang sa ganoon ay ang kanilang basehan, hindi lamang yung kanilang affiliation with a political party,” he said.
“Ang popularidad, hindi kailanman dapat maging lisensya ito para matakasan ang accountability,” Tolosa nadded.
LEGARDA
Asked about reports that Senator-Judge Loren Legarda left the country, Co said she does not see an immediate effect on the impeachment trial.
“That will come at the end, kapag nailatag na ng prosecution at defense ‘yung ebidensya na gusto nilang i-present. At sa dulo naman po, whether conviction or acquittal, ‘yung Senate ang magde-decide kung paano nila i-handle, ano pong bilang nila, anong rules po ang applicable. For now, tiwala tayo na all hands on deck sa pagbutbot ng ebidensya at syempre pagpapaintindi nito sa sarili nila at sa mamayan,” she explained.
“We may be speculating too much. For all we know, baka by Monday, nandyan na po ulit ang good senator at will participate in the proceedings. But in any case, sa ngayon, malinaw po ‘yung ruling ng presiding officer dyan. Two-thirds means sixteen… At the time that statement was made, madami naman hong ibang senator judges na hindi nakakapag-participate. So parang walang pinakaiba dito sa sitwasyon kung hindi man makakadalo sa susunod na pagdinig si Senator Loren Legarda. But at the end of the day… maybe this matter will be properly addressed at the more appropriate time,” Tolosa added.
Barbers, for his part, raised questions on whether the travel was official.
“Tanong ko lang, official ba ‘yung travel ni Cong. Leandro Leviste and Sen. Loren? So if it's official, then maybe wala siguro question. If it's not an official travel, then maybe somebody should ask. Anong bang meron? So yun lang doon. Now, the threshold, yung voting, will come at a proper time,” he said.