Latest news with #Bucoy
GMA Network
9 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
House prosecution says impeachment court spox should not speak for VP Sara
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol should speak for the court, not for the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte, House prosecution panel spokesperson and lawyer Antonio Bucoy said Friday. Bucoy was reacting to Tongol's comments on Thursday when he said that there is a high chance that the Vice President will make a motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint. Tongol said, 'Ang action na ini-expect natin from the defense by filing an ad cautelam appearance—na magpa-file sila ng either answer with affirmative defense questioning the jurisdiction, or a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.' (We expect the defense to question the jurisdiction of file a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.) 'As spokesperson, he is the mouthpiece of the court. He expresses the mindset of the court. [But] he's telegraphing the defense to file a motion to dismiss,' Bucoy told GMA News Online in a text message. 'Recall that the partiality of some members of the court had already been raised as an issue. I priorly stated that while I am prepared to give the judges the benefit of a doubt, the spokesperson's subject statement convinces me otherwise,' Bucoy added. House spokesperson Princess Abante agreed. 'Do not speak for the defense. Speak for the impeachment court,' Abante said of Tongol. 'That is why we are saying that what we want is a Senate impeachment court that is ready to accept the evidence, listen to the evidence and decide based on the evidence presented,' Abante added. In a "24 Oras" report by Saleema Refran, Tongol said, "Hindi pag-aabogado sa isang panig o paglilito sa publiko ngunit pagsagot lamang sa scenario setting na tanong sa akin nang naayon sa aking karanasan sa litigation." "Ito ay bahagi ng ating tungkulin hindi lamang bilang spokesperson ngunit bilang abogado rin upang ipaliwanang ang legal proceedings sa lahat," he also said. "The Impeachment Court is committed to neutrality, fairness and due process. Respect for the court is fundamental to democracy, so it is vital for the stability of this democracy for all to work together with mutual respect…and for litigants to avoid unnecessary attacks that only serve to hinder our collective efforts to proceed with the impeachment process," Tongol added. In a separate statement, House lead prosecutor and 4Ps party-list Representative Marcelino Libanan commended the senator-judges who uphold decorum and refrain from public commentary, but he did not mention names. 'We commend our senator-judges who have chosen the high road of restraint. Silence, in the context of an ongoing trial, is not passivity—it is professionalism,' Libanan said. 'In this highly charged political moment, those who speak least may actually understand the gravity of their judicial role the most. They recognize that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is a constitutional tribunal—not a venue for political theater," Libanan added. Libanan then cited the Constitution's demand for neutrality from judges in any legal or quasi-legal proceeding. 'Every statement a judge makes outside the courtroom is a potential challenge to fairness inside it. The discipline shown by some senators is therefore not just admirable—it's essential,' Libanan said. 'We urge all senator-judges to uphold the same level of discretion. Let the facts and the Constitution—not noise—shape the outcome of this process,' he added. Over 200 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment complaint against Vice President on February 5, accusing her of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
The Star
a day ago
- Politics
- The Star
No issue with House refusal of Sara Duterte lawyers' papers, says prosecution spokesman
Reginald Tongol (left) and Antonio Bucoy. - Photo from Regie Tongol & Associates Law and Communications Facebook page and video screengrab MANILA: The House of Representatives' decision not to receive the entry of appearance made by Vice President Sara Duterte's lawyers for the impeachment trial should not result in any issue, prosecution spokesman Antonio Bucoy said. In his first-ever press briefing held on Tuesday (June 17), Bucoy was asked why the House supposedly refused to receive the entry of appearance sent by the defence counsel on Monday (June 16) afternoon. Bucoy admitted that he does not know the exact reason, but noted that this should not be an issue, because the phrase 'tender copy refuse to receive' indicates that it was as if the document was received. 'I would like to clarify. I do not know the reason why. But the bottom line is that nobody was hurt, there was no damage. Because when they tendered the service of the entry of appearance, tender means you are constructively served. So, regardless of whether they accept it or not, the purpose was served because it was tendered. So as if you received it,' he explained. ''When it is tendered, the document is left with the chamber. The term 'tender' was used because they did not acknowledge that they had already received it. Nonetheless, like what I said, no harm, no foul. Nobody was hurt here, nobody was aggrieved,' he added. According to Bucoy, he is not sure whether the recent circumstances surrounding the impeachment proceedings have led to an impediment — which may be a reason why the House did not receive the entry of appearance. 'Now I do not know if there was an impediment or none that's why the entry was not accepted, or what is the exact reason why it was not accepted. But like I said earlier, no harm, no foul because the service […] was tendered so as if it was received. There is no damage,' he added. On Monday night, Senate impeachment court spokesperson Reginald Tongol confirmed that Duterte's counsel has entered its appearance, with 16 lawyers defending her — including those from the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm. However, Tongol said that the House was 'indicated in page 3 to have been copy furnished as well today at 3.42pm, but has a note 'Tender Copy refuse to receive.'' Tongol said in an interview with DZMM on Tuesday that the House's refusal to accept the document may delay the impeachment proceedings. Duterte was impeached last February 5, after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified impeachment complaint against her. The articles of impeachment were immediately sent to the Senate as the Article XI, Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that a trial should proceed forthwith if one-thirds of House members file the complaint. As one-third of 306 House members is 102, the requirement was fulfilled. However, trial did not start as the articles of impeachment were not sent to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break. And when the proceedings were supposed to start last June 3, the Senate eventually approved a motion to remand the articles back to the House, due to alleged constitutional infirmities. The House prosecution team, however, said that they will defer acceptance of the returned articles, and will file a motion seeking clarification as one of the Senate's requests — a certification from the 20th Congress that they will pursue the impeachment — cannot be complied with now. Duterte's impeachment was hinged on different issues, like allegations of confidential fund misuse within her offices which were uncovered during the hearing of the House committee on good government and public accountability, and threats to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez assassinated. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
GMA Network
4 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
Prosecution sees long trial ahead due to foot-dragging by Senate, VP Sara
The House prosecution panel sees a lengthy impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte due to the delays on the part of the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, and Duterte's camp. Lawyer Antonio Audie Bucoy made the statement Tuesday during his first press conference as the House prosecution team's spokesperson. 'It doesn't look that way,' Bucoy responded when asked if the prosecution sees a swift impeachment trial of the Vice President. 'There's so much foot dragging on the part of the impeachment court, and also on the part of the impeached official. Pero ito po, once ito ay umusad, sa panig ng prosecution, hindi po ang prosecution ang magbibigay ng dahilan para maantala ito. Ang gusto ng prosecution, swift trial,' Bucoy added. (The prosecution will not cause any delay. The prosecution wants a swift trial.) Bucoy's statement came almost a week after the Senate sitting as an impeachment court returned the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives pending two conditions, namely: the House certifying that the impeachment complaint did not violate the one-year ban on filing an impeachment complaint which only allows for one impeachment complaint filed against the subject impeachable official every year and the House in the 20th Congress, which will only start on July 28, explicitly informing the Senate that it is still willing to prosecute the impeachment complaint against the Vice President. The Vice President, for her part, already filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to declare the impeachment complaint against her null and void because the House of Representatives allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion in impeaching her last February 5. Bucoy stressed that the Constitution and the impeachment rules both mandate an immediate and swift impeachment trial without such preconditions set by the Senate impeachment court. 'Ayon po sa Saligang Batas, kapag nailatag ang articles of impeachment, dapat agad-agad mag-proceed sa trial. At dapat bigyan, i-serve ng writ of summons, ang impeached official para maglahad ng sagot, not a motion to dismiss. Kung 'yung nasasakdal ay hindi pwede maglahad ng motion to dismiss, eh di lalo na siguro 'iyong hukom, hindi po ba? Dahil ang sinabi po ng Saligang Batas, ang kapangyarihan [ng Senado] ay to try and decide the case. To try, ibig sabihin po ay maglitis,' Bucoy said, referring to Senator Ronald 'Bato' dela Rosa's motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint against Duterte. (The Constitution states that once the articles of impeachment has been laid, the impeachment trial should proceed. The respondent will be served summons so she could file an answer to the allegations, not file a motion to dismiss. If the respondent is not allowed to file a motion to dismiss, how much more a senator-judge? The Constitution states that the mandate of the Senate is to try and decide the case. To try means to conduct a trial.) Dela Rosa's motion was amended to return the articles of impeachment to the House, but Bucoy argues that such return has no basis in the Constitution and even in impeachment rules. 'Iyong mga grounds na binanggit ni Senator Dela Rosa [in his motion to dismiss], iyon rin po iyong grounds na iniakyat nila [Vice President Duterte] sa Supreme Court. So ang nangyari, si Senator Dela Rosa umaaksyon na parang defense counsel,' Bucoy said. (The grounds raised by Senator Dela Rosa are the same grounds being raised by the Vice President before the Supreme Court. So, what happened was Senator Dela Rosa is acting like a defense counsel.) 'Based on the rules of impeachment, the impeachment should be given priority. At a certain hour, they should stop their legislative work and conduct the trial of impeachment,' Bucoy added. Over 200 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment complaint against Vice President back in February 5, accusing her of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly over alleged misuse of around P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza and the President's cousin and Speaker and Leyte Representative Martin Romualdez. The 200 lawmakers who endorsed the impeachment complaint is way more than one-third of the House as required by the Constitution for the impeachment complaint to be directly sent to the Senate for trial to proceed. 'Hindi sinabi ng Saligang Batas na ang kapangyarihan [ng Senado] ay to hear and decide. Ang ginamit po ng Saligang Batas na lengwahe, trial shall forthwith proceed. Ang sinabi ng Saligang Batas ay to try and decide. Ganon po ka-eksakto ang lengwahe ng Saligang Batas ukol sa proseso ng impeachment,' Bucoy pointed out, referring to Article 11, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that "the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment." (The Constitution did not say that the mandate of the Senate is to hear and decide. The language used by the Constitution was trial shall forthwith proceed. The Constitution stated to try and decide. That is how exact the Constitution is when it comes to the impeachment process.) The House already adopted a Resolution certifying that the impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President did not violate the one-year ban, although the House is yet to submit such certification to the Senate impeachment court. Bucoy said the House prosecution team is expected to file pleadings to address the issue on certifications in the coming days. The House prosecution panel spokesperson, however, reiterated that the Senate impeachment court cannot make decisions on a whim because its authority, just like the rest of public officials, are limited by what is stated in the Constitution. 'Hindi po pwedeng, porke sui generis (class of its own) [ang impeachment trial], pwede mong gawin ang lahat ng gusto mo. Ang limitasyon po ay nasasaad sa ating Saligang Batas at sa kanilang sariling impeachment rules. In fact, kung 'yung impeachment rules po ay hindi alinsunod sa Saligang Batas, hindi rin uubra iyon,' Bucoy said. 'Iyong kanyang statement na kaya niyang gawin, kaya nilang mag-order ng kahit na ano, mali po yun,' he added. (It does not mean that because it is a sui generis, they can already do what they want. The limitation is stated in the Constitution and in the impeachment rules. In fact, if the impeachment rules is not in accordance with the Constitution, it has no weight. His statement that they can do or order anything is wrong.) Bucoy was referring to Senate President Francis Escudero's statement that the impeachment court has no limitation when it comes to what it can or cannot do. 'The Article 11 [of the Constitution] is for accountability of public officials, which is very specific. Hindi po pwedeng bardagulan ito. Hindi pwede na kung anong gusto, 'yun ang gagawin. May limitasyon,' Bucoy said. (This cannot be whimsical wherein you do things your way. There are limits.) Benefit of the doubt But despite the prevailing delays, Bucoy said that the prosecution still believes that the Senate will not turn a blind eye on evidence. 'We will give them the benefit of the doubt sapagkat alam po naman nila 'yung batas eh. Alam nila kung anong ginagawa nila eh. Nanumpa sila that they will administer impartial justice. Ngayon, tingnan po natin kung talagang tutuparin nila 'yung pinanumpaan nila: to deliver impartial justice, the cold neutrality of an impartial judge,' Bucoy said. (They know the laws, they know what they are doing. They took their oath to deliver impartial justice. Let's see if they will prove their word.) 'Kami po ay umaasa na bubuksan ng mga hukom ang kanilang mga mata at titimbangin nila ang ebidensya. Umaasa kami that the evidence will convince them to be impartial and to vote. Kung kinakailang mag-convict, they will convict. Kung kinakailang mag-acquit, they will acquit. Lahat po ay depende sa ilalahat na ebidensya,' Bucoy added. (We are hopeful that they will see and weigh the evidence, and that would convince them to vote accordingly. Their vote should depend on the evidence.) No foot dragging Sought for comment, Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol said the Senate is not dragging its feet when it comes to holding the trial, adding it was able to do the following in a week: convening issuing orders adopting rules and suppletory rules ordering compliance from the House of Representatives as initiators of the complaint to settle issues raised on jurisdiction issue summons to the Vice-President, and receive entry of appearance of defense lawyers. 'Claims of foot-dragging are baseless as actions speak louder than words,' Tongol said. Likewise, Tongol said that parties to the case are yet to file pleadings one week since the Senate impeachment court convened. 'Any litigator worth his salt would know how easy and fast it is to file Motions for Clarifications, Manifestations, Compliance or even Formal Entry of Appearance but is there anybody who asked why they are yet to file these before the court? If they take their time in filing those, how much more if more weighty motions are involved?' Tongol said. He said it is disrespectful for litigants to question the court with the end goal of merely discrediting it instead of doing their job to have their complaints ventilated in the proper forum. "If they feel strongly about the actions of the Court then they should avail of their remedies in law and not air out grievances in the court of public opinion,' Tongol added. GMA News Online reached out to the camp of the Vice President for comment and will publish it once available. —with a report from Giselle Ombay/AOL, GMA Integrated News
