Metro Manila, Philippines – Complainants of one of the impeachment suits against Vice President Sara Duterte said they will not respond to the formal reply she submitted to the House justice committee, calling it a non-answer.
Amando Ligutan, counsel of the petitioners composed of clergy and lawyers, said his clients submitted their manifestation of waiver to the panel on Tuesday, March 17.
“Despite the gravity of the accusations against her, and the unmistakable public character of the funds she is charged with misappropriating, respondent ultimately said nothing to defend herself,” the complainants said.
“Accordingly, complainants manifest their intention not to file a reply to respondent’s non-answer,” they added.
The group said Duterte failed to explain the allegation of misusing ₱612.5 million in confidential funds.
They also flagged how the defense team supposedly merged the idea of ultimate and evidentiary facts in their appeal.
Duterte, in her consolidated answer ad cautelam filed on March 16, said the impeachment proceedings violated her right to due process and that the suits should be dismissed due to the absence of ultimate facts.
The vice president’s defense team said the justice committee employed double standards in handling her case, as compared to the now dismissed impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
‘Not an answer at all’
Meanwhile, a number of lawmakers criticized Duterte’s reply, saying the vice president continues to stonewall.
“This is not an answer at all. Instead of addressing the charges head-on, she chose to hide behind technicalities,” Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega said, adding that the defense is using procedural arguments.
Ortega endorsed the fourth complaint, which were deemed sufficient in form and in substance with the third ouster suit.
Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon, justice committee member, rejected Duterte’s claim that the complaints did not state ultimate facts, citing the documentation that supported the allegations.
“The vice president was not deprived of due process. In fact, she was afforded the opportunity to respond through this answer ad cautelam. However, the submission does not specifically and completely rebut the material allegations raised in the complaints,” he added.
The fresh moves to unseat Duterte began in February, when the one-year-bar from her first impeachment lapsed, in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.
The SC declared her previous ouster as unconstitutional based on procedures, but not on merits. Most of the grounds were cited in her previous impeachment, including culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, bribery, and high crimes, among others.
