THERE are moves to block the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte in the Senate because she and her allies are scared that the public will see the evidence against her, according to incoming Rep. Leila de Lima (PL, ML).
“You can say, they’re really scared. I mean VP Sara is scared,” De Lima, a member of the prosecution team in the impending Duterte impeachment trial, told a radio interview last Saturday.
De Lima said there is an apparent coordinated strategy to delay, and possibly derail, the proceedings.
She pointed out that the impeachment complaints include allegations involving bank transactions and the use of falsified documents to liquidate public funds.
“There are about two articles dun sa Articles of Impeachment na covered ‘yan (that covers that). And I think, isa ‘yan sa mga bagay, sa mga charges, na takot si VP Sara (that’s one of the things in the charges that VP Sara fears),” she said.
The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, before adjourning sine die June 10, remanded to the House of Representatives the Articles of Impeachment pending some issues that senators want congressmen to clarify.
However, while vowing to comply with the order, the prosecution team has criticized the impeachment court for allegedly violating the Constitution with its move.
Sen. Ronald dela Rosa also sought to dismiss the articles outright before the court’s remand order.
De Lima also noted that the Vice President’s camp has filed an appearance “ad cautelam” before the impeachment court, which could be a prelude to future procedural challenges to prevent a trial.
“This is really cause for concern kasi ang pinaka-objective is hangga’t maaari hindi dapat magkaroon ng trial proper. Hangga’t maaari hindi dapat lumabas ang mga ebidensya (because the main objective is for the court not to hold a trial proper as much as possible. For the evidence not to come out as much as possible),” she said.
De Lima earlier warned that the Office of the Ombudsman, led by Samuel Martires, an appointee of former president Rodrigo Duterte, may eventually dismiss a possible case against the Vice President to weaken the impeachment complaint.
The Ombudsman has launched a preliminary investigation on Duterte’s alleged misuse of millions of confidential funds based on the findings of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.
If the Ombudsman dismisses the complaint, De Lima said it can be used to weaken the prosecution’s case against the Vice President.
“Lahat ‘yan magkatugma-tugma (Everything is linked). It could really be part of the strategy,” De Lima said.
She also slammed Duterte’s frequent foreign trips to meet with supporters, questioning if the Vice President is still performing her duties and responsibilities.
“Ito ang ginagawa niya ngayon, hindi mo na alam kung nagtatrabaho siya as VP (That’s what she does now, you don’t know if she’s working as VP),” she said.
De Lima said Duterte is deploying both “legal and public relations strategies to control the narrative and disrupt the process.”
“So they’re doing everything. Sa legal side, of course hiring a big firm and ang dami nila, 16 lawyers. And then these foreign trip blitz, it’s part of propaganda,” she added.
INHIBIT
De Lima said there is a “clear basis” for senators to inhibit themselves from the proceedings for showing signs of partiality.
“It is a clear basis. It is a legal basis. It’s a just basis,” she said. “Pero ang nagde-decide n’yan … sila (But the one who decides that, voluntarily, is them).”
Incoming Sen. Panfilo Lacson said it is up to the senator-judges themselves, not the impeachment court presiding officer, to decide if they will make public comments on the issues surrounding Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Lacson made the remark after impeachment court spokesman Reginal Tongol said that there is no gag order yet to that effect since the impeachment court presiding officer, in this case Senate president Francis Escudero, believes that, at least for now, discussions on the issues being presented before the impeachment court are “healthy.”
Tongol also said over the weekend that Rule 18 of the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, stating that the presiding officer and the members of the Senate shall “refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial,” will be used “sparingly.”
Lacson, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), said: “Only the senator-judges, not the presiding officer, after agreeing among themselves or at least a majority of them, can decide not to make public comments on issues pertaining to the impeachment case.”
Lacson will serve as one of the senator-judges in the impeachment trial of Duterte if the trial crosses over from the 19th Congress to the 20th Congress.
Lacson likewise voiced concern over Tongol’s earlier statement that he would file a motion to dismiss “if I were the Vice President.”
He said such a statement is uncalled for since it potentially telegraphs the possible moves that the defense can take.
He noted that even the prosecution panel spokesman Antonio Bucoy has described Tongol’s statement as “inappropriate.”
“Atty. Tongol, being the spokesman of the entire impeachment court, should not limit himself to the sentiment of the presiding officer,” Lacson added.
Bucoy has earlier accused Tongol of allegedly following the footsteps of biased senator-judges.
Tongol, in a statement on Friday, took exception to criticisms of his statement, saying that the impeachment court “operates independently and is committed to neutrality.”
He also said he was only answering media questions on “scenario setting” based on his experience in litigation, because the whole process involves multiple legal steps that need to be explained to the public.”
He added: “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, for all to support this process and for litigants to avoid unnecessary attack that only serve to hinder our collective efforts to proceed with the impeachment process.”
OMBUDSMAN CASE
The House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability yesterday said the Office of the Ombudsman’s move to proceed with the preliminary investigation on the Vice President’s alleged misuse of public funds is a tacit affirmation of the panel’s findings.
Manila Rep. Joel R. Chua said the Ombudsman’s quick action is a “strong affirmation of the weight and integrity” of the findings of the House of Representatives.
“It is both unusual and significant that the Ombudsman proceeded directly to preliminary investigation and issued subpoenas to the respondents — skipping the usual fact-finding phase – all within the same week that we furnished them with a copy of the Committee Report. This kind of swift response sends a clear signal: the Ombudsman has found prima facie evidence to warrant a preliminary investigation on the basis of the Committee Report,” he said in a statement.
The Office of the Ombudsman earlier ordered the Vice President and nine other officials of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd), within 10 days from receipt of the order, to submit counter-affidavits on the committee report submitted by the Chua panel.
The House earlier this month adopted the recommendation of the Committee on Good Government for the filing of plunder charges against Duterte and officials of the OVP and DepEd for alleged misuse of hundreds of millions in confidential funds when the Vice President was still the education secretary.
The recommendation was part of Committee Report No. 1503, which was the result of the panel’s eight hearings on the alleged misuse of public funds by the DepEd and the OVP.
The Vice President is accused of misusing P612.5 million in confidential funds disbursed by both the DepEd and the OVP through the use of dubious recipients such as the now infamous “Mary Jane Piattos.”
Chua said no formal complaint was filed apart from the committee report itself.
“The Ombudsman acted purely on the strength of our committee report. We have not yet even attached or submitted the supporting evidence for the committee report. That alone speaks volumes,” he said.
Chua also pointed out that the Ombudsman had a sudden change of heart because “just a few months ago, Ombudsman Samuel Martires publicly stated that he saw no grounds to investigate the Vice President.”
“That he now believes otherwise shows that the facts uncovered by our committee could no longer be ignored,” he said.
Chua said that since the Ombudsman has effectively treated the committee report as the initiating complaint, “we are prepared to fulfill our role as the complainant and ensure the process is based on truth, fairness, and accountability.”
He said the committee will formally request to be given time to file replies and other evidentiary documents to the counter-affidavits that the respondents will file.
“The Ombudsman will need to see the evidence supporting the committee report. We want to make sure this is not just a speedy process — but a credible one,” Chua stressed. “We will cooperate fully to ensure that all parties are given fair and reasonable opportunity to present their side, as we likewise present the truth uncovered through months of legislative inquiry.”
“Ultimately, this is about accountability. We are not rushing to judgment. But we owe the Filipino people a full and impartial investigation — and we are committed to seeing it through,” he added.
Chua vowed to cooperate with the Ombudsman’s investigation, saying the House is prepared to submit its answer once the Vice President submits a reply.
“Well, makakaasa po ang ating Ombudsman na tayo ay makikipag-cooperate (Well, our Ombudsman can expect our cooperation),” he said in a separate interview with GMA.
‘PUBLIC EYE’
Rep. France Castro (PL, ACT) warned Martires that being a Duterte appointee, “the people are extra vigilant in watching him as they fear that there may be a whitewash of the case against VP Duterte even if the evidence are overwhelming.”
“As it is, all modes for holding Sara Duterte accountable, whether through criminal cases or impeachment, should be welcomed. This need not be a case of choosing one over the other. Let the separate proceedings reach their logical conclusion – conviction,” she said.
The Chua panel has also found Duterte liable for betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution, the same grounds cited in the Articles of Impeachment filed against her in the Senate.
It said among those who should face plunder charges along with the Vice President are the DepEd officials who had something to do in the handling the funds, such as former DepEd Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) Edward Fajarda, security officer Lt. Col. Dennis Nolasco; Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, head of the Vice President Security and Protection Group (VPSPG); undersecretary for Finance Annalyn Sevilla and former undersecretary retired Maj. Gen. Nolasco Mempin.
The committee also called for the filing of plunder charges against OVP chief-of-staff Zuleika Lopez, assistant chief of staff and Bids and Awards Committee chair Lemuel Ortonio, special disbursing Officer (SDO) Gina Acosta and other officials who may still be identified in the future.
The panel recommended that charges against the same officials be filed for technical malversation, falsification and use of falsified documents.
It also wants Duterte and Acosta to face perjury charges on top of the bribery and corruption against the Vice President, Fajarda and other DepeD officials and employees. – With Raymond Africa
