VICE President Sara Duterte yesterday formally asked the Senate impeachment court to junk the Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives against her for alleged violation of the one-year rule under the 1987 Constitution.
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.
Neither the Senate impeachment court nor Duterte’s camp provided the media a copy of her response. No additional details of her reply were likewise made available.
In her response, Duterte’s legal team said the fourth impeachment complaint should be dismissed since it is “void ab initio,” or void from the beginning, for violating the one-year rule under Section 3 (5) Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
“Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, by counsel, without waiving any jurisdictional and/or other objections she has to this case and the Fourth Impeachment Complaint, respectfully states: the fourth impeachment complaint must be dismissed because it is void ab initio for violating the One-Year Bar Rule under Section 3 (5) Article XI of the 1987 Constitution,” the document read.
It stated that the Constitution “explicitly prohibits the initiation of more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a period of one year.”
“There are no statements of ultimate facts in the fourth impeachment complaint. Stripped of its ‘factual’ and legal conclusions, it is nothing more than a scrap of paper… the Fourth Impeachment Complaint is a clear abuse of the impeachment process,” it also said.
It added that since there were “no statements of ultimate facts” contained in the impeachment articles, there is nothing for the Vice President to answer.
The Senate sitting as an impeachment court on June 10 issued the writ of summons and gave Duterte 10 days to submit her reply.
Last week, 16 lawyers from the Fortun, Narvasa, and Salazar law firm entered their appearance ad cautelam before the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The House prosecution panel did not officially receive the lawyers’ appearance.
The Vice President’s camp furnished a copy of her response to the writ of summons to the House before they were delivered to the Senate by a courier of the law firm to the Senate.
Senate secretary Renato Bantug, who is the designated Clerk of Court of the impeachment court, received the response.
Impeachment court spokesperson lawyer Regie Tongol confirmed the court’s formal receipt of Duterte’s response.
“The Impeachment Court, through the Secretary of the Senate acting as the Clerk of Court, confirms the formal receipt today at 5:49 pm of the Answer Ad Cautelam of VP Duterte,” Tongol said.
House spokesman Princess Abante confirmed that the lower chamber received a copy of Duterte’s answer at 3:53 p.m.
The document was delivered by Arnel Barrientos Jr., a messenger from the law firm Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar.
The House has five days to reply to the Vice President’s response.
The Senate is still waiting for the House’s certification that it did not violate the one-year ban on accepting impeachment complaints.
OMBUDSMAN CASE
Meanwhile, Manila Rep. Joel Chua said the Vice President should first be removed from office through an impeachment trial before criminal charges are filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman which has already launched a preliminary investigation on her alleged misuse of hundreds of millions of confidential funds based on the findings of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.
Chua cited a decision of the Supreme Court (SC) Second Division in the 2005 case of the Office of the Ombudsman versus Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 146486) that an Ombudsman and his or her deputies, being impeachable officials, must first be impeached and removed from office before they can be criminally or administratively charged.
Chua, who is also a member of the 11-man House prosecution panel in Duterte’s impending impeachment trial, said jurisprudence clearly requires administrative or criminal proceedings to wait until after the conviction of an impeachable official like the Ombudsman and the Vice President, in a trial by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
Chua said that in the 2005 decision, the Supreme Court cited a 1995 ruling on petitions seeking the disbarment of then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, which states that “the Ombudsman and other constitutional officers who are required by the Constitution to be members of the Philippine Bar and are removable only by impeachment, are immunized from liability possibly for criminal acts or for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or other claimed misbehavior.”
Should the tenure of the Ombudsman be terminated by impeachment, the ruling said, it would be the only time that he or she “may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively – e.g., in disbarment proceedings – for any wrong or misbehavior which may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings.”
“So I do not know how this will be reconciled regarding the case of our Vice President if ever they (Ombudsman) release a decision on the matter before the impeachment court comes up with their own decision,” Chua said.
Chua said a potential solution is for the Ombudsman’s investigation and eventual filing of charges against Duterte to be deferred while continuing with the probe on other officials of the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education.
Chua said that while the House of Representatives welcomes the Ombudsman’s move to start the preliminary investigation, congressmen “were surprised by the sudden action of our Ombudsman.”
“We can say that we were also surprised by the Ombudsman’s move because the Vice President is an impeachable official. The Ombudsman’s mandate provides that the office should wait for the result of the impeachment before filing the accompanying appropriate charges,” he told a press conference in Filipino.
He said the Ombudsman acted swiftly on the panel’s recommendation to charge Duterte of plunder and other violations despite not having seen the voluminous evidence that would have supported the committee’s report.
“The mere fact na in-adopt nila ang aming committee report nang hindi pa man din naka-attach doon ang mga ebidensya, e ibig sabihin noon, nakikita po nila na meron na pong probable cause (The mere fact that they adopted our committee report without the evidence attached to it yet, means that they’re seeing there’s a probable cause),” Chua said.
Chua noted that the House committee report was adopted on June 10 and was transmitted to the Ombudsman on June 16. After only three days, the Ombudsman issued the order directing Duterte and others to submit their counter-affidavits.
“Masasabi namin na parang mabilis din ‘yung pangyayari (We can say that the turn of event was quick),” he said. “So, medyo nagulat lang kami, pero maaasahan po ninyo na kami naman ay magko-comply dito (So we were surprised but you can expect us to comply with the Ombudsman’s orders).”
Incoming Rep. Leila de Lima, who will also be a member of the prosecution team, 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.
If the Ombudsman eventually dismisses the complaint, De Lima said it can be used to weaken the prosecution’s case against the Vice President since the defense may claim that there is no merit to the case.
The Ombudsman’s action was contrary to the previous opinion of Martires, who has claimed that he saw no violation in Duterte’s spending of P125 million in confidential funds within 11 days.
The House has already clarified that the Chua committee did not file criminal and administrative charges against the Vice President before the Office of the Ombudsman but merely furnished it a copy of the findings and recommendations based on its investigation into her disbursement of confidential funds in both the OVP and the DepEd, which she led as secretary until her resignation in June last year.
The Ombudsman last June 19 ordered the Vice President and her subordinates to answer complaints of technical malversation, falsification, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
It ordered the Vice President and nine other officials of the OVP and the DepEd, within 10 days from receipt of the order, to submit counter-affidavits on the committee report submitted by the Chua panel.
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.” – With Wendell Vigilia
