Senate to House prosecutors: Comply first before complaining

The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, pushed back Wednesday against criticisms from the House prosecution panel, urging lawmakers to comply with proper procedures before publicly questioning its rulings.

Senate impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Reginald Tongol refuted claims of “foot-dragging” in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, following the Senate’s decision to remand the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives.

According to Tongol, the impeachment court had accomplished several key actions within a week, including the convening of the court, issuance of summons to Duterte, and orders for compliance to the House. The Senate also received a notice of appearance ad cautelam from Duterte’s legal team on Monday.

“All of these things we have accomplished in seven days... There is no foot-dragging happening,” Tongol said.

“We have been expecting the communication from the House of Representatives and the House Prosecutors as to the compliance that they have been talking about in the press conference and media releases that they had been doing for the past three days that as of now, seven days have passed and there is no such formal notice or compliance that has been filed with the impeachment court,” he added.

In his first public appearance as spokesperson of the House prosecution team, Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy claimed that delays on the Senate’s part were hindering the impeachment process.

Tongol responded sharply, suggesting the prosecution panel focus on its filings instead of criticizing the court. “This is the first time I’ve seen litigants question the court,” he said. “I suggest they spend their energy on what needs to be done... instead of attacking the credibility of the impeachment court.”

Asked whether the lower chamber should comply with the Senate impeachment court’s order, Tongol said the decision is still up for the 20^th Congress House members.

“As you can read in the order of the impeachment court, what’s stated there technically isn’t an affirmation or attestation. What it says is simply a communication from the 20th Congress. But how does the 20th Congress officially communicate with the upper house, which is the Senate impeachment court? Of course, it should be through formal means we’re accustomed to — such as the passage of a resolution,” he said.

“However, it’s up to them how they choose to do it — for example, by filing a signed resolution from a majority of the members of the House of Representatives. These are the official communications that the impeachment court has been waiting for them to comply with. But of course, we still need to wait for the creation of the 20th Congress — until it is formally constituted,” he added.

The Senate impeachment court previously voted 18-5 to return the articles of impeachment to the House. The dissenting senators — Koko Pimentel, Risa Hontiveros, Grace Poe, Win Gatchalian, and Nancy Binay — argued against the remand.

Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa initially filed a motion to dismiss the charges, which was later amended by Senator Bong Go to remand the case instead.

The Senate's order included a directive for members of the incoming 20th Congress to formally express willingness to pursue the impeachment case — widely seen as a move supported by allies of former President Rodrigo Duterte to stall the proceedings.

Tongol clarified that while the Senate would not compel the House to act, any competent lawyer should first comply with court orders. “This is the order of the impeachment court, and any lawyer worth his salt should comply before you complain,” he said.

He also took a swipe against “inactions” by the House prosecution panel, adding that the Senate impeachment court has yet to receive formal notice or compliance from them.

“As I said, actions speak louder than words. And for us lawyers, evidence carries more weight than words. So let’s just look at the evidence — what have they actually filed? Even the simple act of receiving the ordinary notice of appearance from the defense has not been done on their part,” he said.

“If they were truly prepared as early as February, as claimed by the presiding officer who said, ‘What we have to do during this interim time while waiting for the convening of the court is to prepare,’ well, the Senate has already done so. That’s why the defense lawyers were able to file their entry of appearance ad cautelam,” he added.

He continued: “If they were really ready, they should have received it. There should already be an office designated to handle such filings. So it seems that it’s not the impeachment court that’s unprepared.”