VP Sara's counsel defends SC ruling on impeachment
The statement came amid rebuttals from the House of Representatives and the possible filing of motion for reconsideration.
'Hiwalay naman ang mga committee hearings. If I'm not mistaken, sa aking interpretation, and tinatalakay ng Supreme Court doon ay 'yung due process mismo doon sa pag-initiate ng impeachment proceedings, which includes 'yung pagbibigay sa kaniya ng kaukulang pagkakataon upang sumagot doon sa draft articles of impeachment or draft impeachment complaint,' Atty. Michael Poa said in an Unang Balita report by Jonathan Andal on Monday.
(The committee hearings are separate. If I'm not mistaken with my interpretation, the Supreme Court tackled the due process on initiating the impeachment proceedings, which includes providing her with enough opportunities to answer the draft articles of impeachment or draft impeachment complaint.)
Poa also shared that their legal team is prepared for the impeachment trial, and will be waiting for what will happen at the impeachment court.
Earlier, House of Representatives spokesperson Atty. Priscilla Marie 'Princess' Abante said that the bases for the dismissal of Duterte's impeachment were 'alarming.'
'Ang Kamara, matapos ang masusing pag-aaral, ay maghahain ng motion for reconsideration dahil ang desisyon na nagsasabing ang Articles of Impeachment na ipinadala sa Senado ay barred or unconstitutional ay nakaangkla sa mga factual premises o findings na mali at salungat sa opisyal na record ng Kamara,' she said.
(The House, after a thorough study, will file a motion for reconsideration because the decision declaring that the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate are barred or unconstitutional is based on factual premises or findings that are incorrect and contrary to the official records of the House.)
Abante noted that the decision made by the Supreme Court had incorrectly interpreted the timeline of the Congress' movements, and based it on news articles instead of the official House Journal.
She also added that there were no clauses in the Constitution that states that Duterte must be informed regarding her impeachment, especially considering that it was signed by no less than 1/3 of the Congress.
'Nagbigay ang korte ng panibagong patakaran na wala naman sa umiiral na batas. Pinawalang bisa nila ang Articles of Impeachment base sa mga bagong pamantayan ng due process para sa respondent. Kung due process at opportunity to be heard ang usapan, ilang beses nang naimbitahan si Vice President Sara Duterte sa mga pagdinig ng committee. Nanatili siyang tikom ang bibig,' Abante said.
(The court provided new rules that were not included in the existing law. They have dismissed the Articles of Impeachment based on a new due process for the respondent. If we are talking about due process and opportunity to be heard, Vice President Sara Duterte had been invited in committee hearings several times. She remained quiet.)
As of Monday, the Congress yet to provide a specific date for the filing of motion for reconsideration. —Jiselle Anne Casucian/AOL, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
5 hours ago
- GMA Network
House lawmakers support call for oral arguments on VP Sara impeachment
Several members of the House of Representatives on Tuesday supported calls for the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. The calls came as the House of Representatives filed a motion for reconsideration before the SC, asking it to reverse its ruling that the articles of impeachment filed against Duterte were unconstitutional. "I welcome the call for the SC to issue a status quo ante order and call for oral arguments to explain intricate legal issues and ventilate factual incidents that may be clarified for the appreciation of the Honorable Justices," impeachment prosecutor Joel Chua of Manila's 3rd District told GMA Integrated News. Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro, another impeachment prosecutor, agreed, saying the motion for reconsideration must be decided on "with utmost care." "This is a landmark case in impeachment proceedings, thus both parties must be accorded ample opportunity to argue their respective positions. Let us be mindful that these are the very foundations of our democracy: the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land; the impeachment, which is the people's redress against erring and abusive public officials; and ultimately, the integrity of the Highest Tribunal which has the exclusive power to interpret laws," she told GMA Integrated News. Tingog Party-list Representative Jude Acidre reiterated that the issue is not Duterte but how the Supreme Court's ruling will impact future impeachment cases. "I think the position of the House is not merely because it's about the Vice President who's at stake here. Also because I think we have to look at precedent. If we allow this particular ruling to prevail, then it will have serious consequences on the way impeachment trials will be done. And possibly, as far as the House is concerned, if we listen to the Speaker yesterday, we're worried it would infringe on the exclusivity of the right of Congress to initiate impeachment cases," he said in an interview. The legislator said he supports calls for the SC to hold oral arguments on the issue—a call echoed by groups such as 1Sambayan. "Kailangan din natin pag-aralan paano magiging epektibong mekanismo sa pag-e-ensure ng accountability ang impeachment process," Acidre said. (We also need to study how the impeachment process can become an effective mechanism to ensure accountability.) "If the impeachment case is dismissed, then we have practically... it's to the country's loss. Kasi ibig sabihin noon, never natin malalaman at never masasagot ang mga katanungan, matagal na natin hinihingi. Katulad ng kung ginamit ba nang tama ang confidential funds, may pananagutan ba ang vice president tungkol sa kanyang pagbabanta sa buhay ng Pangulo, ng unang ginang at ang Speaker ng House." he added. (It would mean that we would never know and never get answers to the questions that we have long been asking. Such as if the confidential funds were used properly, or is the Vice President liable for the threats she made against the President, the First Lady and the Speaker.) "These are issues that need to be answered. These are issues that affect the very core of our democracy. May naman pupwedeng dahil lang sa teknikalidad ay nabalewala na po ito [It could be that these will be dismissed due to a technicality]," he added. While Acidre said he respects whatever the Senate decides to do with the Articles of Impeachment, he stressed he is still hopeful that the impeachment trial will proceed. When asked if the Supreme Court decision effectively removed the third mode of impeachment, which is to immediately transmit to the Senate the Articles of Impeachment if it is signed by at least a third of all members of the House of Representatives, Acidre replied, "I wouldn't say as far as tinanggal [removed]. Siguro radically change. It makes it difficult for congressmen to exercise that. And I think I agree it requires examining whether it is an example of judicial overreach." Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña, who recently filed a motion to intervene in the impeachment case at the Supreme Court, stressed the importance of holding oral arguments on the issue. "Napakahalaga yung oral arguments para magkaroon din ng fair day in court itong ating motion for reconsideration. And more than that, napakahalaga na madinig ng taumbayan yung katwiran ng parehong panig at na mapaliwanag ng House of Representatives na yung lahat ng ginawa natin ay in compliance with the Constitution at yung sarili nating House rules," he said in an interview. (It is very important to hold oral arguments so that the motion for reconsideration will have a fair day in court. And more than that, it is very important for the Filipino people to hear the reasonings of both sides and for the House of Representatives to explain why everything we have done is in compliance with the Constitution and our own House rules.) He also called on the Senate not to act in haste on the Articles of Impeachment. "Para silang bibiyahe na jeep. Hindi pa puno, gusto nilang umarangkada. At pag umarangkada sila, ang mangyari, ang maiiwan, yung katotohanan, pananagutan, at yung katarungan," Cendaña said. (It's like they're on a jeep that wants to get going even before it's full. And when they leave early, what gets left behind are the truth, accountability, and justice,) "Sa dulo, ang mahalaga dito, dapat marinig ng taumbayan yung dalawang panig at magkaroon ng fair day in court. Kasi nga, pag nangyari yan, pag dismissed na yan na hindi pa final ang process sa Korte Suprema, talo na naman ang taumbayan," he added. Dinagat Islands Rep Kaka Bag-ao also believes that oral arguments in the Supreme Court on the impeachment will make the issues clearer for the public. "Una-una, dapat maintindihan pa nga ng taumbayqn. And I think the only response to that would be an oral argument in Court na puwedeng mabigyan ng pagkakataon yung mga partido to explain ano talaga ang totoong facts doon sa issue," Bag-ao said in an interview. Bag-ao also believes the Senate Impeachment Court should conduct an impeachment trial. "Yung impeachment trial ay dapat din matuloy at dapat maintindihan ng Senado yan, no? Bukod sa hindi pa tapos yung kaso sa Supreme Court, pangungunahan nila. Kahit pa sabihin nilang sila ang may sole authority, ang kailangan pa rin, ang requirement pa rin ay, anuman ang kanilang response, ay magkaroon ng trial. Gusto natin makita ano ba talagang ebidensya laban kay VP? Ano ba talagang depensa ni VP Sara? Tingin ko dapat mas maintindihan ito ng mga tao," Bag-ao said. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
Heated debates or not? Senators ready decision on VP Sara impeachment
Senators are now gearing up for proceedings on Wednesday when the upper chamber decides on how it would proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, following the Supreme Court (SC) ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional. In an ambush interview, Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa said that should there be a motion in the plenary on Wednesday, August 6, to dismiss the Vice President's impeachment case, the so-called Duterte bloc will "most likely" vote in favor of it. However, he clarified that the Duterte bloc has not discussed anything on the matter. Dela Rosa also said he believes that there's no need for debates among senators, stressing that the SC decision is immediately executory even as the House of Representatives already filed a motion for reconsideration. "In the first place nga para sa akin, there's no need for debates. Bakit pagdebatehan 'yan nagsalita na ang Supreme Court eh. Nagdesisyon na ang Supreme Court, bakit mag-debate pa tayo? Hindi ako lawyer…pero naniwala ako that nobody is supreme and above the Supreme Court, except God," he said. (In the first place, I believe that there's no need for debates. Why should we still debate on that when the Supreme Court has already spoken? I'm not a lawyer... but I believe that nobody is supreme and above the Supreme Court, except God.) "Tignan natin kung ano magsipaglabasan bukas. Ayaw kong magsalita ng tapos. Pero kung tanungin niyo ako, I am very much inclined to support and obey the decision of the Supreme Court. No questions asked," he added. (Let's see what comes out tomorrow. I don't want to preempt anything, but if you ask me, I am very much inclined to support and obey the decision of the Supreme Court. No questions asked.) Dela Rosa said he was still willing to listen to the arguments of his fellow senators, particularly the four who signed a draft resolution on how the Senate can proceed with Duterte's impeachment trial after the SC ruling. "Four versus 20? Maging mainit ba 'yan (Will the debates be heated)? I don't know," he said. Long debates Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Vicente "Tito" Sotto III said he expects that the debates tomorrow will be long. "Yes, I've read it. I'm ready for tomorrow," Sotto said, referring to the 97-page Supreme Court decision. For his part, Senator Erwin Tulfo said his desire for the impeachment trial to continue still stands, emphasizing that he wants the public to see the evidence on the Articles of Impeachment. "This was before when the Supreme Court made the decision [declaring the articles] unconstitutional. Hanggang ngayon, that is my stand. Gusto ko sanang makita. Pero may limitations na ngayon, 'di ba? So, mayroong sinasabing unconstitutional. So, 'yun ang pinag-aralan ko these past few days and I will be basing my decision diyan sa lumalabas ngayon," Tulfo said in a separate interview. (This was before when the Supreme Court made the decision that the articles are unconstitutional. Until now, that is my stand. I would like to see the evidence. But there are limitations now, right? It was declared unconstitutional. So, that's what I am studying these past few days and I will be basing my decision on what will come out.) He also said he was expecting "heated" debates tomorrow between senators in favor of dismissing the case, and those who want the trial to continue. Voting 13-0-2, the SC earlier declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that these are barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that these violate her right to due process. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC said it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. The House of Representatives on Monday asked the SC to reverse its decision, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate permitted to exercise its power to try the case. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
7 hours ago
- GMA Network
1Sambayan, others ask SC to pause action on Sara impeachment, allow arguments
Political coalition 1Sambayan and others on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a status quo ante order that will pause the proceedings of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a day before the Senate is expected to decide whether to abide by the High Court's ruling that barred the trial. The petitioners filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the impeachment cases as well as to admit their motion for reconsideration, where they asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order and to set the case for oral arguments. A status quo order is intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy, according to the SC. '[I]t is judicially wise for this Honorable Court to grant a Status Quo Ante Order that prevents the Senate of the Philippines from taking concrete action such as to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment considering the pending constitutional issues that have yet to be resolved by this Honorable Court,' the petitioners said in their 52-page motion. Among the petitioners were retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and retired Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales. Petitioner Howard Calleja, meanwhile, called on the Senate to hold off from deciding on the impeachment due to the pending petition. 'That's why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate na sana pakinggan muna itong mga issues. Let us thresh out all the issues bago tayo mag desisyon kung idi-dismiss or whatever 'yung gagawin natin,' he said. (That's why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate, hopefully they will first listen to these issues first. Let us thresh out all the issues before we decide whether to dismiss or whatever action we will take.) Calleja said that the Senate impeachment court should also continue the trial. 'Pero kung hindi nila maisip na gawin 'yun siguro hingin atin kumbaga mag status quo ante muna tayo. Huwag tayong ora-orada na gagawa ng desisyon kasi nga meron pang pending na ito na pwede mag bago,' he said. (But if they don't think of doing that, we will ask for a status quo ante. Let's not rush into making a decision because this is still pending and could change things.) 'Na sana kung gusto nila galangin ang Korte Suprema, galangin din nila ang proseso at sa pag galang ng proseso, eh medyo—sabi ko nga status quo muna. Hinay-hinay kasi ang proseso hindi pa tapos,' he added. (That hopefully, if they want to respect the SC, they should also respect the process, and in respecting the process—like I said, status quo for now. Let's take it slow because the process isn't over yet.) In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. However, the SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. In their MR, the petitioners said that the SC ruling overturned the Francisco Jr. ruling, where the SC previously said that an impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated upon the filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, or when an impeachment complaint is filed and verified by at least one-third of the membership of the House. The petitioners argued that the fourth impeachment complaint was filed and acted upon before the House adjourned. They argued that the first three complaints cannot be deemed to have attained the status of being 'initiated.' 'It is respectfully emphasized that the Fourth Complaint had already been approved prior to the adjournment of Congress; hence the effectivity of the one-year ban rule upon adjournment does not affect it,' they said. Aside from this, the petitioners argued that the ruling on the reckoning of the one-year ban will lead to grave consequences. 'Such a rule creates a perverse incentive for an impeachable officer to inoculate himself from accountability simply by causing the filing of sham complaints, because whether the Congress acts on them, the mere filing would already trigger and consume the one-year ban, a result inconsistent with the Constitution,' they said. The petitioners also stressed that the first three complaints never reached the House committee. This is the third motion for reconsideration filed with the SC against its ruling. Last week, some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Duterte filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam, where they asked the High Court to declare the fourth impeachment complaint as constitutional. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives on Monday filed its own motion for reconsideration, arguing that it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. — BM, GMA Integrated News
