Vice President Sara Duterte is not one to mince words, but she was found by House lawmakers to be elusive in her answers on the many questions thrown at her regarding her utilization of confidential funds.
PHOTOGRAPH BY YUMMIE DINGDING FOR THE DAILY TRIBUNE @tribunephl_yumi
Vice President Sara Duterte made history as the first sitting second-highest official ever to be impeached by Congress.
With 215 votes, more than double the required one-third (102 signatory lawmakers), she was officially impeached by the House of Representatives during its last session on Wednesday, just before it adjourned for a three-month break for the campaign season.
But what are the grounds?
Based on the seven Articles of Impeachment filed by the House, Duterte allegedly committed betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes — all impeachable offenses provided by the Constitution, except for treason.
According to Article I, Duterte allegedly committed betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and other high crimes when she threatened to plot the murder or assassination of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
To recall, the outraged Vice President publicly announced this on Facebook Live on 23 November at the height of the ongoing House investigation into her confidential funds (CF).
In Article II, House lawmakers accused Duterte of betraying public trust and committing graft and corruption for allegedly misappropriating and malversing the CFs allocated to her office (P500 million) and the Department of Education (P112.5 million) during her tenure as secretary.
Similar to Article II, Article III states that Duterte betrayed the public trust, committed graft and corruption, and bribery.
While it did not explicitly outline the rationale for the charges, it can be recalled that at least four officials of DepEd, including former undersecretary and chief of staff Michael Poa, admitted in a House inquiry that they used to receive cash envelopes from Duterte, with ex-undersecretary Gloria Mercado revealing that hers contained as much as P50,000 monthly.
Meanwhile, in Article IV, Duterte was accused of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust for allegedly amassing unexplained wealth and failing to declare her properties in her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).
In December 2011, the late former Supreme Court justice Renato Corona was impeached on the same grounds. Both Corona and Duterte were impeached by the House in just one day, using the shortcut route of mustering the required votes and bypassing the extensive process of conducting committee hearings.
In Article V, Duterte was alleged to have committed high crimes, including murder and conspiracy to commit the same.
In Article VI, lawmakers alleged that Duterte committed acts of destabilization, which constitute a culpable violation of the Constitution and even the high crimes of sedition and insurrection.
Lastly, in Article VII, lawmakers asserted that the totality of the abovementioned acts demonstrates that Duterte is unfit to remain in office.
At present, the ball is in the court of the Senate.
The upper House will need a two-thirds vote — at least 16 of its 24 sitting senators — to convict and remove Duterte from office. If convicted, Duterte will be permanently disqualified from holding any public office in the future.
A conviction, however, shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification, according to the Constitution. This means that pursuing prosecution and punishment, including imprisonment, would be up to the judicial courts.
If Duterte survives impeachment, the House, which has the sole power to initiate it, would have to wait at least one year to file another petition, as provided by the Constitution.
