Despite a months-long delay, a House prosecutor asserted Sunday that the lower chamber did not sit on the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte, refuting allegations that it was congressmen who dilly-dallied on the submission of the petition to the Senate.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua, part of the prosecution panel, said in an interview that the House took time to review the articles of impeachment to ensure a strong case before transmitting them to the Senate. His remarks countered Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s assertion that the House cannot pressure the Senate to convene immediately when it took months to submit the complaint.

“Before the filing of the fourth impeachment complaint, the House first ensured that the evidence we will file is solid. And then, of course, we also see to it that we would not violate what we call the one-year ban,” Chua said in Filipino.

“Because if we just file it [without examining it], then it might be a useless case that may be dismissed because we can't prove it [in the court],” he added, pointing out that it’s more difficult to establish the case rather than just hear it.

House prosecutors and Escudero have been trading barbs over the latter’s reluctance to swiftly begin the trial and his insistence that proceedings will only start when the 20th Congress takes over, after 12 new senators are sworn in.

“They slept on the three impeachment complaints even though it is stated in their rules [that it shall be submitted] immediately. Well, if their definition of immediately is more than two months, then they should not hold the Senate to a different standard,” Escudero, a former House member, said in Filipino.

Although House prosecutors have made it clear that they respect the Senate’s position on convening for a trial, they insisted, however, that they only abide by the Constitution, which mandates that the trial shall forthwith proceed after the submission of the articles of impeachment.

Earlier, Escudero said that holding a trial during the congressional break “legally cannot be done” since the articles of impeachment — which would serve as the basis for the impeachment court to be convened — were not referred to the plenary before Congress adjourned.

The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on 5 February, the last session day of Congress before it went on a four-month recess for the election campaign season.

Critics have speculated that the Senate’s hesitation to deal with the impeachment has something to do with the election, particularly with those gunning for re-election who want to play it safe.

Barking up the wrong tree

Since the impeachment gained traction, several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court: either to block the Senate’s looming trial or to compel the chamber to constitute itself into an impeachment court and conduct the proceedings.

However, former Senate President and Justice Secretary Franklin Drilon argued that the petition asking the high court to order the Senate to convene is “baseless” and should be “dismissed because the SC has no power over the Senate.”

"SP Chiz can't do anything. Even if he wants to, if the President doesn't have a call, he can't call to convene a special session to consider the impeachment complaint,” Drilon said in an interview, noting that they were barking up the wrong tree.

The veteran lawmaker explained that only President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has the sole authority to call Congress to a special session — an order, he said, that falls under the Chief Executive’s “constitutional function” and should not be interpreted as an intrusion into the principle of separation of powers.

"The ball is in the President's court unless he also does not want to convene the impeachment court,” he stated.

“If he doesn't call a special session, then [the trial] won't really start, and Congress won't be able to fulfill their power to convene as an impeachment court until after the time they come back in June after the election,” he continued.

According to Drilon, neither the Senate nor the House can meet outside their approved calendar unless the Constitution allows them to hold meetings that are not called by the President.

After his bitter falling out with the VP, Marcos has since distanced himself from the impeachment discussion and said he would only call for a special session if asked by the Senate.

House prosecutors, however, argued that the President has no business meddling with the impeachment and that there is no need for a call for a special session, citing the Constitution’s explicit mandate that the Senate must convene and proceed with the trial immediately upon receiving the articles of impeachment.

The House outlined seven impeachable offenses against Duterte, including betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

The articles of impeachment were anchored on Duterte’s alleged plot to have Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez killed, as well as the purported misappropriation of P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to her office and the Department of Education during her tenure as its secretary.