"A scrap of paper": Philippine VP Duterte wants impeachment complaint dismissed
MANILA, June 24 (Reuters) - Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte has described the impeachment complaint against her as "nothing more than a scrap of paper" in her formal response to the Senate, saying the case was baseless and should be dismissed for being unconstitutional.
The impeachment, widely seen as a test of political alliances, comes amid an acrimonious falling out between Duterte and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr that has sparked a broader power struggle ahead of the 2028 presidential election.
Marcos, who has distanced himself from the case, is limited to a single term but is expected to groom a successor to run. Duterte, the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, is viewed as a strong rival contender if she avoids impeachment.
"The Vice President enters a plea of not guilty, without waiving any of her jurisdictional and other objections over the charges," Duterte said in a submission dated June 23.
She dismissed the accusations against her as baseless, calling them "exaggerations and speculations that are not supported by evidence" in the 34-page response to the Senate.
In February, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Duterte for betrayal of public trust and high crimes, sending the case to the Senate. On June 11, the Senate returned the case to the House shortly after convening as an impeachment court.
The Senate also ordered Duterte to respond to the allegations in the case, including that she had plotted to assassinate Marcos and others based on a statement she made in November about hiring an assassin.
She is also accused of misusing public funds both as vice president and during her stint as education secretary.
As well as saying there was nothing substantive for her to answer in the case, Duterte argued the impeachment complaint was the fourth filed against her, with the three earlier ones not acted on by the lower house.
This, she said, violated a constitutional safeguard against more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a year, reiterating the arguments she used in asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the complaint. That case is ongoing.
"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," Duterte's reply said.
She faces a lifetime political ban if convicted.
Congresswoman Gerville Luistro, a member of the impeachment prosecution panel, confirmed the lower house had received Duterte's reply to the Senate on Monday.
"The entire prosecution team is currently studying each and every allegation contained in the answer. Certainly, we will be filing a reply within 5 days from receipt as provided in the rules," Luistro said in a phone message.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
128 Democrats cross the aisle and help Republicans block AOC-backed bid to impeach Trump over Iran strikes
The bulk of the House Democratic caucus voted down an effort to launch impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump on Tuesday, joining a unified House GOP. Led by Rep. Al Green, dozens of House Democrats including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez voted on Tuesday in favor of beginning an impeachment inquiry into Trump's strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend, a move which numerous Democrats as well as Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican, said was unconstitutional. But the majority of their caucus was against such a response to the announcement of U.S. involvement in Israel's war against Iran, which many Democrats have seemingly not been able to condemn outright. Many instead have attacked the president for the sudden nature of the strikes and lack of congressional oversight, shying away from total condemnation of the effort to knock out Iran's nuclear program at the same time. On Tuesday, the impeachment inquiry vote was defeated, with 128 Democrats joining all present House Republicans in voting it down. Lacking support from House or Senate Democratic leadership for the move, Ocasio-Cortez nevertheless floated the idea of filing articles of impeachment over the president's order to attack Iran on Saturday evening, minutes after the White House announced the U.S. airstrikes. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' wrote the congresswoman. The tweet provoked a furious response from the president, who lashed out at Ocasio-Cortez and her party in a lengthy rant posted to Truth Social on Tuesday: 'Stupid AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the 'dumbest' people in Congress, is now calling for my Impeachment.' 'Alexandria should go back home to Queens, where I was also brought up, and straighten out her filthy, disgusting, crime ridden streets, in the District she 'represents,' and which she never goes to anymore,' the president continued. The congresswoman fired back in her own pair of tweets, remarking in conclusion that 'I'm a Bronx girl. You should know that we can eat Queens boys for breakfast. Respectfully.' While Ocasio-Cortez has grown closer to party leadership during her time in Congress (after joining as an bomb-throwing freshman who ousted a top-ranking Democrat in a stunning primary upset), Tuesday's vote is emblematic of her status as a figure of the party's left-wing backbencher faction. It's the second time this year that progressives have brushed up against moderate members of leadership over the intensity of their opposition to Trump — the first occurring during the president address to a joint session of Congress this spring. The Bronx congresswoman was defeated in a bid to be the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee late last year, being passed up instead for the late Rep. Gerry Connolly. Supporters of the progressive firebrand argued that Connolly, stricken with cancer and in his 70s, lacked the energy and vigor to be a visible force of opposition to the president; he died in the position earlier this year. Ocasio-Cortez announced that she would not seek his position upon his death, commenting at the time that the party still valued seniority over other, more relevant qualifications.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Senate Republicans scramble to resolve tense divisions as Trump ramps up pressure to pass his big bill
WASHINGTON — The Senate bill's Medicaid cuts are too aggressive for politically vulnerable Republicans. Its clean energy funding cuts are too tame for conservative House Republicans, who are threatening to sink the legislation. And the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions is a nonstarter for key blue-state House Republicans. The GOP-led Congress is barreling toward its own deadline for passage of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' and it's getting messy in the final stretch as President Donald Trump ramps up the pressure on lawmakers to put it on his desk by July 4. 'To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don't go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK,' Trump wrote Tuesday on Truth Social. 'Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT'S DONE.' Passing the party-line bill through the House and Senate, where Republicans have three votes to spare in each chamber, will be a daunting task that requires bridging acrimonious divides. The toughest part will be settling on a final product that can unify Senate GOP moderates, like Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, with the far-right House Freedom Caucus. Those two factions have tended to drive the hardest bargain. After a conference lunch meeting, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters his chamber's goal is to get the bill 'across the finish line by the end of the week,' with the goal of crafting a package that can win 51 votes in the Senate. 'Hopefully when push comes to shove and everybody has to say yes or no, we'll get the number of votes we need,' Thune said. A significant source of consternation is the steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate bill, which include lowering provider taxes that are used to fund the program, and limiting payments to states. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who faces re-election in a battleground state next year, warned his party during a Tuesday meeting that they will lose the 2026 midterm elections if they push ahead on proposed Medicaid cuts. He compared the situation to the heavy losses Democrats suffered in the 2014 midterms after a rocky Obamacare rollout, according to one source in the room. The meeting came one day after Tillis circulated a document with estimates of how much Medicaid money states would lose if the Senate bill passes, including $38.9 billion in losses for North Carolina, $16 billion for Tennessee and $6.1 billion for Missouri. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said the current version of the bill — which also extends the 2017 Trump tax cuts — doesn't have enough votes and would harm rural hospitals in his state. 'Senate leadership now needs to fix this. They're the ones who have invented this new rural hospital defund scheme that the House says they can't pass, that's going to close rural hospitals,' he said. 'It was a bad idea on their part to fool around with it.' Republicans are looking at creating a new fund to protect rural hospitals from the negative consequences of their bill. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said only a small portion of Medicaid funds go to those institutions, but he argued that 'having a fund specifically for rural hospitals is a targeted way to help ensure their viability.' Senate GOP leaders want to include the Medicaid cuts to limit the bill's red ink. The version the House passed is projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. On Tuesday, 16 House Republicans — almost all representing competitive districts — sent a letter rebelling against the Senate's Medicaid cuts. They fretted that those policies would 'place additional burdens on hospitals,' among other things. 'Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent. Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers,' wrote the House Republicans, led by Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., whose district has one of the highest shares of Medicaid recipients in the country. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Justin Chermol responded quickly to the letter, questioning the sincerity of the Republicans' opposition to Medicaid cuts. 'Spare us the performative bulls---,' he said in a statement. 'These so-called moderates already voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in American history — and when the time comes, they'll cave to their D.C. party bosses once again to give their billionaire donors a massive tax break.' On the other hand, the Senate bill pares back some of the clean energy cuts, a move that House conservatives say is unacceptable. That's because much of the green tax credits and funding goes to red states, and Republican senators are reluctant to take it away. Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., the chair of the Freedom Caucus, said the Senate bill 'backtracks' on clean energy cuts and threatened to vote against it. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who voted for the House bill, has also objected to the energy provisions and vowed to oppose the current Senate bill. Roy also warned GOP leaders not to use the July 4 deadline to try and force members to swallow a bill that isn't palatable to them. 'Rumor is Senate plans to jam the House with its weaker, unacceptable [One Big Beautiful Bill] before 7/4. This is not a surprise but it would be a mistake,' Roy said on X. 'The bill in its current Senate form would increase deficits, continue most Green New Scam subsidies, & otherwise fail even a basic smell test... I would not vote for it as it is.' Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., pointed to another reason the process is slow: the bill is still being vetted by the parliamentarian to make sure it complies with Senate rules limiting the bill's provisions to budget matters, a process known as the 'Byrd bath.' 'There's only so much you can pre-negotiate, because the bill is still changing over here as a result of a Byrd bath. I think we're almost done with the Byrd bath. We're making progress in terms of talking through it, but I think we're headed toward the bill hitting the floor sometime toward the end of the week,' Kennedy said. 'And then will everybody be happy? No. But everybody will have a chance to offer an amendment or two.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended Tuesday's Senate Republican meeting, said afterward that he expects a solution on the state and local deduction "in the next 24-48 hours." A decisive group of House Republicans from states like New York and California is threatening to sink the entire bill unless the SALT cap is at least $40,000 per tax filer. But Senate Republicans have no interest is raising the cap to that level in because none of them represent blue states where the deduction is a big issue. Bessent added that the U.S. "getting close to the warning track" on the debt limit, which he has urged Congress to raise before August in order to prevent a default by that month's deadline.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Trump-appointed judges warn of threats, criticize calls to impeach judges
June 24 (Reuters) - Two U.S. appeals court judges appointed by President Donald Trump told lawmakers on Tuesday that they viewed calls to impeach judges over their rulings as inappropriate and that the judiciary needed more resources to bolster security for members of the bench. U.S. Circuit Judges Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder appeared before a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee on behalf of the U.S. Judicial Conference for a hearing examining the courts' finances and cybersecurity. But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle used the rare appearance before Congress by two sitting members of the judiciary to prod them about the fallout from a wave of court rulings blocking Trump's immigration and cost-cutting agenda. Trump and his allies have called judges who have ruled against his administration as "activists," "crooked," "conflicted" and "rogue." Many of the judges have been subjected to threats, and conservative lawmakers in the Republican-led House have even moved to impeach six of the judges. St. Eve, who chairs the Judicial Conference's budget committee, at the hearing renewed the judiciary's request that Congress boost security spending for the courts in 2026 to $892 million, up 19% from the current fiscal year, "to address a complex and evolving threat environment." Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren of California pressed St. Eve on whether the Judicial Conference, the judiciary's top policymaking body, had many referrals recommending any of the judges who ruled against Trump be impeached. "To my knowledge, no, that's outside of the scope of the budget, what I'm prepared to testify to today," St. Eve said. "But I know that we do strongly disagree with calls for impeachment based solely on a judge's rulings." She echoed comments U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made in a statement in March that the appellate process, not impeachment, was the way parties should address rulings they disagree with. Roberts' comments came after Trump called for impeaching U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, who had blocked the president from using wartime powers to deport Venezuelan migrants. Scudder, who like St. Eve sits on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, concurred and told lawmakers that judges should never "rule in a way that is designed to please a public official as opposed to enforce the meaning of the law." Republican Representative Darrell Issa, who chairs the Judiciary Committee's panel on courts, stressed that none of the impeachment articles referred to the committee for its review were under active consideration. Republican Representative Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee's chair, said lawmakers are "comfortable with making sure there's security," but not with boosting spending on everything else within the court system, "particularly with some of the decisions you've seen." Republican Representative Russell Fry of South Carolina described the judiciary as "politically compromised, prompting Democratic Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado to ask the judges if they agreed it was. "I don't," Scudder said. He said judges "look at the facts and the law to try to get it right, recognizing that there's an appellate process in place if the losing party disagrees or the ruling can be challenged." Read more: Conservative US appeals court judge knocks calls to impeach jurists Republicans seek impeachment of 2 more judges who stymied Trump US Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump's attack on judge US judiciary warns of threats amid 'concerning' calls to impeach judges
