By Jose Cielito Reganit | Philippine News Agency
The House panel prosecuting Vice President Sara Duterte formally urged the Senate Impeachment Court to move forward with the trial, asserting that her Answer Ad Cautelam (with caution) is riddled with “falsehoods, misleading claims, and baseless procedural objections.”
In a reply filed Friday, the House prosecution team argued that Duterte should be tried and held accountable before the Filipino people.
“The Filipino people have a fundamental right to witness this process unfold. No bloodbath is necessary. Let the trial begin,” the panel said in its reply.
They emphasized that the gravity of the allegations against Duterte leaves no room for procedural technicalities, rejecting her plea for outright dismissal.
“These Articles of Impeachment highlight respondent Duterte’s unfitness for public office,” the prosecutors wrote.
The panel described her legal tactics as a transparent attempt to delay or dismiss the proceedings, rather than answer the charges.
Duterte claimed that the Senate lacked jurisdiction because the Articles of Impeachment were not properly transmitted. Prosecutors rebutted this, noting that she had already acknowledged receiving the Articles and even responded to them.
“It is rather strange for respondent Duterte to argue that the Honorable Impeachment Court did not have in its possession the Articles of Impeachment when she admitted having received the same,” they noted.
Even the Senate’s order to return the Articles to the House did not divest it of jurisdiction, the prosecutors argued, quoting the Senate’s own resolution which stated that the case was “not dismissed or terminated.”
The panel stressed that the Court still exercised authority, as shown by its issuance of a summons and transmission of the Articles to Duterte.
They also rejected Duterte’s reliance on Senate Resolution No. 1013 to argue that there was no formal presentation of the Articles. The panel pointed out the resolution was never adopted and carried no legal weight.
Misuse of SC ruling
Likewise, the prosecution dismissed Duterte’s invocation of Supreme Court (SC) jurisprudence, like in the Balag v. Senate, which she cited to claim the Senate was not a continuing body.
Prosecutors accused her of entirely modifying an SC decision, pointing out that the ruling explicitly states the Senate is continuing in nature and can maintain non-legislative functions such as impeachment trials even across Congress transitions.
On Duterte’s claim that the impeachment proceedings violated the one-year bar rule, prosecutors explained that the verified complaint signed by one-third of the House members was filed on Feb. 5—the only complaint “initiated” under the Constitution.
In response to Duterte’s allegation that she was not given due process, the prosecutors emphasized that because the verified complaint was filed under Rule IV, it already constituted the Articles of Impeachment and did not require committee hearings or respondent participation at the House level.
Rule IV of impeachment proceedings states that a verified complaint/resolution filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House shall be endorsed to the Senate in the same manner as an approved bill of the House. At the time of filing, the complaint must be verified and sworn to before the Secretary General by each of the members constituting at least one-third of all members.
The Senate trial is the proper venue for Duterte to address the charges, they said.
Livestreamed statements
They also addressed Duterte’s objection to using her livestreamed statements and interviews as evidence, noting that Duterte herself used televised interviews to justify her defense.
“This selective and self-serving application of principles of law should not be countenanced,” they wrote.
The prosecution accused Duterte of repeatedly resorting to false statements and misrepresentations, which the prosecution said may even violate ethical rules for lawyers.
“This clearly shows that respondent Duterte continues to perpetuate falsehoods, deception and injustice by resorting to [misleading] this Honorable Impeachment Court with inaccuracies and false contentions,” they stated.
Prosecutors further asserted that the constitutional mandate clearly allows an impeachment to be initiated by one Congress and tried by the next, citing past jurisprudence affirming the Senate’s continuing nature in both legislative and non-legislative roles.
“It is obvious from a simple reading of the Answer Ad Cautelam—which relies on misleading claims and baseless procedural objections—that the only legal strategy of the defense is to have the case dismissed and avoid trial,” the panel said.
