Metro Manila, Philippines – Vice President Sara Duterte has filed her reply to the House justice committee on the two complaints seeking to oust her from office, insisting that the panel committed “double standards” in weighing the impeachment suits against her and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
In her consolidated answer ad cautelam filed on Monday, March 16, Duterte’s defense said the justice panel “failed to observe the basic tenets of fair play and due process,” drawing a comparison between the deliberations of her impeachment suits and the president’s.
“In dismissing the impeachment complaints against the president, this committee went beyond the four corners of the complaints and relied on extraneous considerations that are irrelevant in determining the sufficiency of the factual allegations. On the contrary, the same parameters were not applied by this committee to the impeachment complaints against respondent,” the defense said.
Duterte said the allegations of multi-billion peso corruption against the president were also set aside, in contrast to how the panel weighed in on her alleged confidential misuse and bribery of government officials.
In February, the ouster suits against Marcos were declared insufficient in form and substance, triggering the Constitutional one-year bar rule.
The defense argued that had the same standards been applied to the vice president’s case, the complaints would have been declared insufficient in substance as well.
READ: Duterte ouster complaints hurdle substance requirement
Duterte also noted that the committee disregarded her appeal on the notice of disallowance involving her fund use before the Commission on Audit.
“[The committee] disregarded the absence of any court decision declaring the Vice President guilty of unlawful or unconstitutional acts, as it did with respect to the impeachment complaints against the President,” the defense said.
‘No ultimate facts’
Meanwhile, Duterte said the impeachment complaints should be dismissed, saying the allegations are not based on ultimate facts.
The vice president shut down accusations of plunder, malversation, graft and corruption under the doctrine of command responsibility.
“Since these imputations do not rest on any established facts or final findings of a competent tribunal or court, they remain mere conclusions at best,” the defense said.
Duterte added “complainants have failed to present any competent evidence showing that she unlawfully obtained public funds or derived personal gain or benefit, whether for herself or for another, from the alleged monetary benefits.”
She also hit the formal request for her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth to evaluate accusations on her supposed unexplained wealth, as cited in the impeachment suits.
“The Supreme Court had already clarified that acts or omissions constituting the proper charge must be committed during the term of the impeachable officer, not before they were elected or appointed,” the defense said.
Addressing allegations that she hired someone to organize an assassination plot against the president and his family members, if she herself gets killed, Duterte argued there “was no proof that any such contract ever existed.”
The vice president slammed as well the use of the affidavit of Ramil Madriaga, her alleged bagman, for being “treated as gospel truth, despite being equally unauthenticated.”
Madriaga, who faces a perjury complaint, has claimed he delivered duffle bags of cash to several people on Duterte’s orders.
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.
