Joselito Malig

Article (news)

Sara

Vivienne Gulla

ABS-CBN News

MANILA (UPDATED) — The House prosecution panel filed on Friday its reply to Vice President Sara Duterte’s Answer Ad Cautelam, and asked the Senate Impeachment Court to proceed with the trial.It also reiterated its prayer for the Impeachment Court to convict Duterte, remove her from the Office of the Vice President and order her perpetual disqualification from holding any public office.The prosecution said Duterte’s call for the Impeachment Court to dismiss the complaint against her without holding a trial should be rejected. It observed that Duterte’s Answer Ad Cautelam contained “no prayer of acquittal… only a dismissal of the case”. But the prosecution asserted that “the severity of the charges leaves no room for technical evasion”.“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 House prosecution panel said in the reply signed by Rep. Marcelino Libanan.“They want a shortcut. wala nang trial, dismiss nalang. kaya sa prayer namin i-deny ang kanilang motion to dismiss…Di ba sabi niya gusto niya ng trial. She wants a blood bath. E bubble bath eh, hindi blood bath,” Prosecution Team Spokesperson Atty. Antonio Bucoy also said in a press conference on Friday.In its Reply, the prosecution said Duterte’s Answer Ad Cautelam was full of “falsehoods, misleading claims, and baseless procedural objections”, while the Articles of Impeachment supposedly contain allegations and evidence “sufficient to justify a full-blown trial”.“A trial is not only warranted but necessary to reinforce justice, uphold democratic principles, and affirm that no individual- regardless of rank or influence— stands above the law,” it stressed.“The Filipino people have a fundamental right to witness this process unfold. No bloodbath is necessary. Let the trial begin,” the prosecutors added.<div>IMPEACHMENT COURT JURISDICTION</div>The prosecution tagged as “false” Duterte’s claim that there are no Articles of Impeachment presently with the Impeachment Court.It explained that the Court did not lose jurisdiction when it ordered the return of the articles to the lower chamber, which the latter deferred receipt.Prosecutors pointed out that no less than the court stated in its order that “the Articles of Impeachment be returned to the House of Representatives without dismissing or terminating the case,” until two requirements are complied with.<div>SENATE A CONTINUING BODY</div>The prosecution also asserted that the Senate is a continuing body and that the 1987 Constitution does not prohibit an impeachment complaint filed in the 19th Congress to be tried in the 20th Congress, contrary to Duterte’s position in her Answer Ad Cautelam.“The interpretation and legal conclusion derived by respondent Duterte from Balag is absolutely contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in that case. In Balag, the Supreme Court stated in plain and categorical language that “certainly there is no debate that the Senate as an institution is “continuing”, as it is not dissolved as an entity with each national election or change in the composition of its members,”” prosecutors said.“The 1987 Constitution does not prohibit respondent Duterte’s impeachment by the 19th Congress and her trial by the 20th Congress. The only relevant time constraint under the Constitution is that no impeachment may be initiated more than once in a year. To be sure, the Senate is a continuing body,” they added.“Taken to its extreme, the view that an impeachment trial terminates upon the end of a legislative session would render the entire process susceptible to indefinite delays, stonewalling and filibustering—enabling the Senate to avoid reaching a decision, simply by letting time pass until the end of a Congress,” the prosecution panel noted.<div>NO VIOLATION OF ONE-YEAR BAR RULE</div>The defense’s argument that the Articles of Impeachment violated the Constitutional provision against initiating more than one impeachment complaint against the same official within a period of one year is “baseless”, according to the prosecution.It said that “initial action” refers not just to the filing of the complaint but also its subsequent “referral or endorsement” by the House.“Actions by the Secretary General or the Speaker alone do not constitute the “initial action” by the House,” prosecutors explained.They further argued that jurisprudence allows multiple complaints to be filed before they are simultaneously referred to the proper committee.  They said that the first three impeachment complaints filed against Duterte before the House of Representatives were included in the Order of Business within 10 session days from filing, “in compliance with both the Constitution and the House Rules”.“The action of the Secretary General to wait for the best matchstick to light the candle within the period allowed by the Constitution was sanctioned by the Constitution itself. To listen to the representatives of the people—because they needed time to study the complaints and come up with their own best version of the impeachment complaint—was the Constitutionally and morally correct thing to do,” the prosecutors said.“Ang iniiwasan mo, ayon sa Supreme Court, e merong isa, ‘yung maaunang mag-file na flimsy o walang kabuluhan just to bar other legitimate impeachment complaints. So, sabi ng mataas na hukuman, pwede ‘yang ibigay, buuin muna, tsaka ipapasa. Ang importante, ‘yun pong papasok siya doon sa 10-session-day rule,” Bucoy added.<div>ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT</div>On the first article of impeachment, the prosecution described as “lacking logic” Duterte’s claim that no proof of her entering into a contract to kill the President, the First Lady, and the House Speaker was offered. It asserted that Duterte “admitted” in an online broadcast that she had contracted an unnamed assassin”.“Ang pagkontrata ng mamamatay tao, hindi naman sinusulat ‘yan e… kasi illegal eh. Siya na rin ang nagsabi, “kumontrata ako ng assassin, ng mamamatay tao... no joke”. So anong kontrata ang pinag-uusapan natin? Nasa kasulatan, naka notaryo?” Bucoy said.On the second article, alleging misuse of confidential funds, the prosecution said Duterte “did not deny” that “confidential funds in large amounts were completely disbursed and utilized during a short period of time”, that the documentary evidence of payment submitted by the OVP and the DepEd had “discrepancies and clear badges of forgery”, and that at least P254.8 million pesos were supposedly disbursed to “fictitious persons”.Duterte’s arguments that they are mere “speculation” and that the Commission on Audit has yet to issue a final decision declaring the disbursements illegal, unjustifiable, and exorbitant, “do not deserve merit” for the prosecution.“Hindi niya itinanggi na malaking halaga ng confidential and intelligence funds ay nagasta sa napakaiksing panahon. ‘Yung example dyan ‘yung P125 million na ginasta in 11 days... Hindi niya itinaggi na ‘yung liquidation documents. Sinabi namin fake ito, fictitious ang taong ito. Hindi niya in-address ‘yun. Quiet. Sinabi lang niya hindi totoo,” Bucoy explained.On the third article, accusing Duterte of “bribery” for allegedly distributing monetary gifts to DepEd officials holding procurement related functions, the prosecution disputed Duterte’s claim that the House failed to show evidence the money came from the Vice President. It cited the testimony of a former Education Undersecretary saying she was told the money “came from VP”.On the fourth article alleging unexplained wealth and failure to disclose all properties in Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, Duterte had said that assertions regarding her ownership of undisclosed bank accounts are based solely on a 2016 online article. But the prosecution alleged that Duterte’s total net worth as indicated in her SALN is “manifestly disproportionate” to her income as an elected official.On the fifth article accusing Duterte of “murder and conspiracy to commit murder”, the prosecution said that the VP’s assertion tagging the testimony of former police officer Arturo Lascanas as “uncorroborated” and “questionable” is “getting ahead” of his and other potential witnesses’ testimony in open court.On the sixth article, the prosecution described as “false” Duterte’s claim that allegations of committing acts of political destabilization, sedition and insurrection “simply seeks to punish her for voicing dissent”. It argued that the acts mentioned in the article supposedly demonstrate Duterte’s “utter lack of fitness to remain as the Vice President”.On the seventh article, the prosecution said Duterte is “mistaken” in arguing that it does not contain factual declarations constituting an impeachable offense.“If you will deny it, you should say why you&#x27;re denying it. Hindi totoo yan sapagkat ito&#x27;ng tunay na nangyari. Yung kanya, sinabi lang yan, hindi totoo yan. So, sa amin, that’s an admission,” Bucoy said.The prosecution expressed hopes the senator-judges will reject Duterte’s motion to dismiss the complaint. But if they don’t, Bucoy said the matter may be brought to the Supreme Court.“We are a democracy, we are governed by rules. We are governed by law, kung mawawalang bisa ang batas, there will be chaos, there should be order. Kaya po rule of law is primordial,”  he noted.

The House prosecution panel filed on Friday its reply to Vice President Sara Duterte’s Answer Ad Cautelam, and asked the Senate Impeachment Court to proceed with her trial.

The House prosecution panel filed on Friday its reply to Vice President Sara Duterte’s Answer Ad Cautelam, and asked the Senate Impeachment Court to proceed with her trial.

House prosecution asks Senate impeachment court to proceed to Sara Duterte trial

News

Entertainment

Lifestyle

Sports

Metro.Style

More

Traffic

Manila

Horoscope

Nation

House prosecution asks Senate impeachment court to proceed to Sara Duterte trial

Vivienne Gulla,

ABS-CBN News

Published Jun 27, 2025 04:58 PM PHT

|

Updated Jun 27, 2025 09:54 PM PHT

Read More:

House of Representatives

Sara Duterte

Senate

impeachment

ABSNews

ABS-CBN is the leading media and entertainment company in the Philippines, offering quality content across TV, radio, digital, and film. Committed to public service and promoting Filipino values, ABS-CBN continues to inspire and connect audiences worldwide.

Corporate

Investors

Governance

International Distribution

Corporate

Governance

Investors

International Distribution

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

AI Policy

Terms of Service

Advertise with Us

© 2025 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

AI Policy

Advertise with Us

© 2025 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

NPC Seal of Registration

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

AI Policy

Advertise with Us

© 2025 ABS-CBN Corporation. All Rights Reserved.