ADMINISTRATION lawmakers yesterday vowed to go after Vice President Sara Duterte for her alleged misuses of confidential funds even after the Supreme Court (SC) shot down the Articles of Impeachment against her for being “unconstitutional.”
Deputy Speakers Paolo Ortega V of La Union and Jefferson Khonghun of Zambales said the Vice President is not yet off the hook since the High Court did not absolve her in its ruling, as earlier pointed out by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr..
“I agree with the President. The Supreme Court decision delved into procedural issues but not on the alleged misuse of CIFs received by the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education when she was education secretary,” Ortega said. “The accountability part was not resolved, so we intend to continue asking her to account for those funds and answer for how they have been handled or mishandled.”
Voting 13-0-2, the SC on July 25 ruled that the House impeachment complaint violated the one-year bar rule and due process was not afforded to the Vice President.
The House filed a Motion for Reconsideration last week. The court has asked the camp of the Vice President to comment on the motion filed by the House.
The SC, in the decision, clarified that its ruling “does not absolve petitioner VP Sara Duterte from any of the charges. Any ruling on the charges against her can only be accomplished through another impeachment process, followed by a trial and conviction by the Senate.”
Ortega said that if the SC does not reverse its July 25 decision, “then we will have to discuss after February 6, 2026 how to pursue accountability on the part of VP Sara Duterte for her mishandling of P612.5 million in confidential funds in 2022 and 2023.”
The SC has said that February 6 is the end of the constitutional one-year bar rule, which would allow the House or private citizens to lodge another impeachment complaint against the Vice President.
The House leadership is considering resuming the investigation into the Vice President’s alleged misuse of hundreds of millions of public funds although the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, in the 19th Congress, already recommended the filing of plunder charges against Duterte and officials of both the OVP and the DepEd, which she used to head as secretary.
For his part, Khonghun said: “The people should understand this: the entire 93-page ruling tackled the impeachment process and rules in the House of Representatives. It did not absolve VP Duterte of culpability in the use of P612.5 million received by her office.
“In other words, the Vice President is not yet off the hook on the use of this large amount of taxpayers’ money. We will pursue accountability on her part wherever it takes us,” he said.
Khonghun also slammed “false” social media posts that make it appear that the High Court has absolved the Vice President, saying “the Duterte camp’s trolls and disinformation peddlers are busy at work again.”
Duterte faced seven Articles of Impeachment, which also raised her use of P125 million in just 11 days in December 2022 when she was still education secretary.
The House leadership has said the SC’s decision has factual errors, particularly its statement that the impeachment articles were transmitted to the Senate without the House’s plenary approval, thus the motion for reconsideration.
COMPLY WITH SC
Senate minority leader Vicente Sotto III yesterday said he is banking on the words of his colleagues that they will respect the final decision of the SC on Duterte’s impeachment case.
In a Viber message to the media, Sotto said he is confident that his colleagues would agree to revive the Articles of Impeachment should the SC grant the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House.
Nineteen senators voted to archive the Articles of Impeachment, while four voted against, and one abstained from voting on the motion when the Senate tackled Duterte’s impeachment case last August 6.
During the deliberations, those who voted in favor of the motion to archive the impeachment articles said the Senate should respect and abide by the SC decision. They committed to abide by the court’s decision should it reverse its original ruling on the matter.
Sotto said he brushed aside fears raised by the House of Representatives that there would be a constitutional crisis if the Senate decided not to revive the impeachment complaint if the SC reverses itself.
“I doubt it. Most of my colleagues voted to archive [the impeachment articles], acting as such because of the SC decision. Therefore, if the SC decision reverses, then it’s logical that we address the Articles of Impeachment. It’s either that, or my colleagues lie, which I doubt,” Sotto said.
House prosecution panel spokesman lawyer Antonio Bucoy has assured the public that the House will not cause a constitutional crisis, and will respect and abide by the SC’s final decision on the matter if it rejects its Motion for Reconsideration.
Bucoy said that archiving the impeachment articles added “layers” to the process, noting that if the SC reverses its ruling, a senator would still need to make a motion to revive or take the Articles of Impeachment out of the archives.
“With the archiving, may layer na naman, dalawa. Una, kailangan may mag-mosyon sa mga senador to revive or take it out of the archive. The motion is not enough, kailangan pag-botohan. Eh kung bumoto sila na hindi, to reject? (There are two layers in taking out the archived Articles of Impeachment. First, a senator has to move to revive or take it out of the archive. The motion is not enough. They need to put it to a vote. What if they vote against, to reject?),” Bucoy said in a forum last Saturday.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, in an interview with radio dzBB on Sunday, said the “language” of the SC is important if it decides to grant the House’s appeal.
“Kung madiin ‘yung language ng ruling na kailangan mag-reconvene, mag-trial, at hindi sumunod ang Senado, medyo may mapupunta nga sa constitutional crisis (If the language of the Supreme Court emphasizes that we need to reconvene, conduct a trial, and the Senate disobeys it, we might have a constitutional crisis),” he said.
Lacson said he does not want to preempt the SC by expecting that an oral argument will be held with regards to the motion filed by the House.
He said the SC could have seen a valid argument on the House’ motion, otherwise it would have issued a “minute resolution,” a one-liner order wherein the motion for reconsideration will be denied for lack of merit.
“Pero this time, hindi naman ito common na pinagko-comment pa nila yung kabilang party. Nung mabasa siguro yung MR na ginawa ng SolGen parang nakakita sila ng punto ciguro na kailangang marinig din natin yung kabila (But this time, this is not common that [the SC] orders the other party to comment [on the motion]. Maybe when the SC read the motion prepared by the Solicitor General, it saw a valid point that they need to hear the other party),” he added.
Lacson reiterated that his colleagues should have refrained from taking any action on the impeachment complaint against the Vice President since the SC has yet to come up with a final ruling on the matter.
“Ang most respectful at saka best compliant doon sa order ng Korte Suprema, wala kaming gagawin. Kasi kapag hindi kami gumalaw, nagko-comply kami doon sa immediately executory at hindi naman pini-preempt ‘yung puwede maging ruling ng Supreme Court
(The most respectful and best compliance in the Supreme Court order is not to act. Because if we do nothing, we comply with the immediate executory order and we did not preempt the possible [final] ruling of the Supreme Court [on the motion of reconsideration]),” he said.
Lacson said he expects Sotto to move to pull out the archived Articles of Impeachment in case the SC reverses its decision.
He expressed hopes that their colleagues will honor and respect the SC decision should it reverse itself.
“If the Supreme Court reverses its ruling and they stick to their vote, I will remind them that in their vote to archive the complaint, they invoked respect for the High Court,” he said. – With Raymond Africa
