THE spokesman of the House of Representatives’ 11-man prosecution panel yesterday taunted Vice President Sara Duterte for seeking the dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment against her after saying that she wanted a “bloodbath” during a full trial by the Senate impeachment court.
“Hindi ito ‘yung bloodbath na inaasahan namin, pero itutuloy namin ang paglalahad ng ebidensya sapagkat mahalaga na malaman ng sambayanan kung ano ang sakdal (This isn’t the bloodbath we were expecting but we will continue presenting evidence because it’s important for us that the people know what the allegations are),” Antonio Audie Bucoy told an online press conference.
Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, a member of the prosecution panel, said the team is studying the contents of the Vice President’s answer cautelam (with caution) submitted to the impeachment court so it could prepare a reply within five days.
“The entire prosecution team is currently studying each and every allegation contained in the answer. Certainly, we will be filing a reply within five days from receipt as provided in the Rules,” she told reporters.
The defense team said that since there were “no statements of ultimate facts” contained in the impeachment articles, there is nothing for the Vice President to answer.
‘WAGGING THE DOG’
Bucoy, who is also a lawyer, said the defense team’s tactic of asking the court to dismiss the case on a technicality without addressing the allegations against her is a deliberate attempt to shift attention away from the issues.
“Wala siyang factual o legal grounds ukol sa mga alegasyon (She didn’t have factual or legal grounds to counter the allegations). It was all procedural,” he said.
“Kung hindi mo kayang sagutin ‘yung factual allegations (If you can’t answer the factual allegations), you resort to procedure. Inilihis nila ang usapin sa technicalities. Umaasa sila na through technicality ay makakalusot si Vice President Sara at idi-dismiss na ito (They are diverting the issues using technicalities. They are hoping that through technicality, the Vice President will get off the hook and this will be dismissed),” he said.
Duterte last Monday formally asked the impeachment court to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives against her based on three main grounds: the supposed violation of the constitutional one-year bar rule, the alleged absence of a valid Articles of Impeachment before the court, and procedural defects citing Senate Rule No. 1013.
This was contained in the first page of Duterte’s answer ad cautelam (with caution), which she submitted in compliance with the writ of summons issued by the impeachment court last June 10.
While the defense stated that the Constitution “explicitly prohibits the initiation of more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a period of one year,” it did not cite a standing Supreme Court ruling which states that what is prohibited by the Constitution is the initiation of more than one impeachment proceedings within the period of one year.
While there were four impeachment complaints filed against the Vice President, only one proceeding was initiated after the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth complaint filed by its leaders last February and archived the three others.
“Initiation happens when the complaint is endorsed to the House Committee on Justice,” Bucoy said. “Hindi ho nangyari ‘yun doon sa tatlong unang impeachment complaints (It didn’t happen to the first three impeachment complaints).”
He explained that since the current impeachment complaint was directly endorsed by more than one-third of House members, the need for a referral to the House Committee on Justice was already eliminated as allowed by the Constitution, which made the complaint “the Articles of Impeachment itself.”
Bucoy said “there is no justifiable reason” to dismiss the impeachment complaints without trial.
He said the prosecution will file a reply as soon as possible. “Dahil ang mandato (Because the mandate of the Senate) is to try and to decide, not to dismiss without trial,” he said.
What the Vice President’s defense team is doing, Bucoy said, “is classic wagging the dog.” “Mas pinapalitaw na mas importante ang procedure kaysa sa constitutional law and substance (They’re making it appear that procedure is more important than constitutional law and substance,” he said.
“Ang importante rito ay ang katotohanan (The truth is more important here). Those who cannot address the substance rely on technical procedures — which is exactly what she did here,” he said.
Bucoy said that for the prosecution, Vice President’s filing of reply only means that the trial will proceed. “Matutuloy para sa prosecution. Dahil sumagot siya, matutuloy ang trial (For the prosecution, trial will continue. Because she answered, it will continue),” he said.
Bucoy also laughed off Duterte’s claim that the motive behind the complaint is political, which makes it legally baseless, saying “those who cannot face the facts, those who cannot prove the substance of their defense, resort to procedure.”
He dismissed the Vice President’s claim that the Articles of Impeachment is “a mere scrap of paper,” saying: “Kung basura, bakit niyo sinagot? (If it’s rubbish, why did you answer it?”
Bucoy said it is now up to the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to decide how it would treat the Vice President’s answer since her team refuses to recognize the court’s authority when it filed an answer ad cautelam, “which means precautionary.”
He said the Vice President’s lawyers even filed an ad cautelam entry of appearance without explaining why.
“Ang ifi-nile po ni Vice President Duterte ay hindi reply kundi answer ad cautelam. Ibig sabihin, hindi pa niya tinatanggap o kinikilala ang hurisdiksyon ng impeachment court (What Vice President Duterte filed was not a reply but an answer ad cautelam. This means, she has not accepted nor recognized the impeachment court’s jurisdiction),” the prosecution’s spokesman said.
