Prosecution: Philippines VP Sara Duterte impeachment trial ‘not optional,' Senate must proceed
MANILA: A member of the House prosecution team said the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is 'not optional.'
Last June 25, Senate President Francis Escudero said the chamber, sitting as an impeachment court, can dismiss the case against Duterte if a motion is made and passed by a simple majority, or at least 13 votes.
However, in an interview over DZMM on Friday (July 4), Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores said mostly in Filipino, 'It [trial] is not optional. As soon as it is filed, as I understand it, it is the Senate's obligation to hear and decide the case.'
Flores is a member of the House prosecution team.
The Senate convened as an impeachment court on June 10 and remanded the articles of impeachment to the House to verify that it did not violate the 'one-year bar rule' and that the 20th Congress still intends to pursue the case.
A day later, the House adopted a resolution certifying that the impeachment complaint against Duterte adhered to Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution, satisfying the first requirement.
The constitutional provision states: 'No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.'
But as for the second requirement, Flores said, 'No certification or compliance can be done until the 20th Congress is organized and starts.'
The 20th Congress is set to formally open its session on July 28, starting with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s fourth State of the Nation Address.
Last Saturday, House prosecution panel spokesperson Antonio Bucoy said that if the Senate dismisses the impeachment complaint without a trial, their team may file a petition for certiorari with mandamus before the Supreme Court.
Duterte is accused of culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes—particularly her alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
9 hours ago
- The Star
Investment firm Azoria postpones Tesla ETF after Musk plans political party
FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk listens as US President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with House Republicans at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Washington, DC, U.S. on November 13, 2024. ALLISON ROBBERT/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo (Reuters) -Investment firm Azoria Partners said on Saturday it will postpone the listing of its Azoria Tesla Convexity exchange traded fund after Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he was forming a new U.S. political party. Musk made the announcement a day after polling his followers on the X social media platform he owns, declaring, "Today the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." Azoria was set to launch the Tesla ETF, which would invest in the electric vehicle company's shares and options, next week. However, following Musk's announcement Azoria CEO James Fishback posted on X several critical comments of the new party and repeated his support for U.S. President Donald Trump. That culminated in a post where Fishback announced the postponement of the ETF. "I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Elon to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO," Fishback said. The announcement undermines the confidence shareholders had in Tesla's future after Musk said in May he was stepping back from his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency, Fishback said. Tesla did not immediately respond to a Reuters' request for comment. The announcement from Musk comes after Trump signed his self-styled "big, beautiful" tax-cut and spending bill into law on Friday, which Musk fiercely opposed. Azoria is also offering the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF that only invests in the top 500 U.S. companies that do not impose hiring targets under diversity, equity and inclusion programs, according to its website. (Reporting by Gnaneshwar Rajan in Bengaluru; Editing by Christian Schmollinger)
The Star
10 hours ago
- The Star
ICC junks former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte's plea to disqualify two of judges hearing his case
Former president Rodrigo Duterte's legal team has taken a step to formally challenge the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over his arrest for alleged crimes against humanity. - File photo MANILA: All the 18 elected judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) concurred in rejecting former president Rodrigo Duterte's plea to disqualify two of the judges hearing his crimes against humanity case because his arguments were incorrect, legally untenable and may cause delay. In a 13-page ruling dated July 3, the ICC said the decision on the disqualification plea was reached by the plenary of judges, as required by ICC rules, consisting of 18 judges elected by the Assembly of States Parties, composed of 125 countries excluding the Philippines and Burundi, under the Rome Statute that created the ICC. ICC judges—all respected lawyers in their home countries—are elected to nine-year terms and any finding of partiality against any of them is sufficient cause for removal from the court. No two judges come from the same country in the current batch of judges. Duterte's plea But in the case of Duterte's plea, the plenary of judges unanimously decided that there were no grounds that raise actual nor reasonable apprehensions of bias against Judges Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin and Socorro Flores y Liera of Mexico. 'The plenary of judges considers that the judges acted, at all times, in accordance with the judicial duties assigned to them under the [Rome] Statute,' the ruling read. 'As judges of Pre-trial Chamber I, they issued the Authorisation Decision pursuant to article 15(4) of the Statute, which provides for the power of a pre-trial chamber to authorise an investigation proprio motu, if it considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court,' it added. Legally untenable Duterte sought the excusal of Alapini-Gansou and Flores because of their previous rulings on Duterte's earlier petition questioning ICC jurisdiction, because the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019 when the ICC started investigating the charges against him while he was still president. But the charges that were filed against Duterte covered a period starting from when he was mayor of Davao City until the time the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute. Duterte did not include Presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc of Romania because she was not yet part of the pretrial chamber when it ruled on the jurisdiction appeal. But the plenary of judges ruled that 'there are no grounds to doubt their impartiality in the current case and none of the criteria established.' 'The judges considered that the proposition of the applicant is incorrect and legally untenable, and has the potential to cause delay,' the document reads. 'They noted that, when Pre-trial Chamber I, in a former composition, addressed the issue of jurisdiction in the Situation in the Philippines, it did so in accordance with its duties and limited mandate under article 15(4) of the Statute, without prejudice to any future determinations on the same issue,' it further states. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
Malaysiakini
11 hours ago
- Malaysiakini
Judiciary not playground of partisan preferences
LETTER | Lately, there have been statements from various groups on the government's decision not to extend former chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat's tenure. She retired on July 1, 2025. Opposition leader Hamzah Zainudin has criticised the government's decision not to extend Tengku Maimun's tenure, saying it signals a lack of consideration for the future of the country's legal system. For weeks, before her impending retirement, questions had arisen among legal practitioners and politicians over the lack of an extension for her and an announcement of a successor. The DAP came out late with a statement saying that the judiciary is of paramount importance, and reiterated its position that the extension' of the tenures 'would be consistent with the reformist agenda of the Madani government'. It is obvious from these statements that Tengku Maimun has shown integrity and defends judicial independence. The question is, does the Malaysian public's trust in the judiciary have to be confined to individuals, or would it be better if judges are able to safeguard the independence and integrity of the judiciary? Is the judiciary not a guiding light to the objectivity of constitutional principles? What the public aspires for is not only judges with integrity but also for them to collectively safeguard constitutional principles that make the judiciary truly independent. If this were the case, the retirement of the chief justice would not have been an issue to the people, since whoever comes after would carry on the torch of justice through a balanced and enlightened interpretation of the Constitution that protects the life and liberty of all Malaysians. Therefore, the Association for Welfare, Community and Dialogue believes that it would be wise for judicial appointments to be separated from the preferences of the prime minister or politicians who have their own agendas. The judiciary is the carrier of holistic constitutional principles; it cannot be a playground of partisan preferences or ideological battles. The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
