The House prosecution panel formally petitioned the Senate impeachment court to proceed with the stalled trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, opposing a move by the latter’s camp to junk the articles of impeachment, citing a violation of the one-year bar rule.

The request was outlined in the 37-page response of the prosecutors to Duterte’s camp’s answer ad cautelam (with caution) to the impeachment complaint, which was made in compliance with the summons issued by the Senate impeachment court.

“These Articles of Impeachment highlight respondent Duterte's unfitness for public office. The Honorable Impeachment Court should reject respondent Duterte's desire for a dismissal without trial,” the document reads.

“The severity of the charges leaves no room for technical evasion. A trial is not only warranted but necessary to reinforce justice, uphold democratic principles, and affirm that no individual, regardless of rank or influence stands above the law,” it added.

Duterte’s lawyers, from the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm, had argued that the impeachment complaint must be dismissed, calling it void ab initio (from the beginning) because the House violated Section 3 (5) of Article XI of the Constitution, which prohibits the initiation of more than one impeachment against the same official within a period of one year.

The articles of impeachment transmitted to the Senate on 5 February, shortly after the House impeached Duterte, were the fourth petition lodged against her in a span of only two months.

Furthermore, they questioned the authority of the Senate impeachment court to open the trial in the 20th Congress, asserting that the complaint filed in the 19th Congress should not cross over because unfinished business dies simultaneously with the adjournment of each Congress.

Unfounded, malicious

The House prosecutors, however, dismissed all these allegations, branding them “misleading,” “false,” “malicious,” and “baseless,” among others.

They stand by their position that the one-year bar rule “was never circumvented” because the initiation only occurred when the fourth impeachment complaint, the one transmitted to the Senate, was verified and signed by at least 215 members of the entire House.

The figure was more than double the one-third vote (102 signatories), the required number for an impeachment complaint to bypass committee hearings and be transmitted directly to the Senate for trial.

Waiting for multiple impeachment complaints before simultaneously referring them all to the justice committee had already been allowed by the Supreme Court (Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice), the prosecutors argued.

Barely a week after she was impeached, Duterte petitioned the SC to stop the Senate from conducting a trial, invoking the same arguments in her answer ad cautelam as grounds to block the looming proceeding.

Forum shopping

Prosecutors called Duterte’s answer ad cautelam a “mere repetition” that must be denied on the ground of forum shopping.

Forum shopping occurs when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.

“In summary, the Articles of Impeachment are thoroughly drafted and contain sufficient allegations and evidence justifying a full-blown trial,” the prosecutors stressed.

“In contrast, the Answer Ad Cautelam merely relies on false allegations, which are all refuted by legal precedents and Supreme Court rulings,” they concluded.

Duterte was the first second-highest official impeached by the House on grounds of graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and other high crimes. The House filed seven articles of impeachment against her.

The Senate is expected to try her when the 20th Congress opens on 28 July. She needs only nine votes for acquittal. With six senator-judges reportedly aligned with her, she may only need three additional votes to secure a not guilty verdict.

However, a guilty verdict (requiring 16 votes) on even one article is sufficient for conviction, forcing her out of office and permanently disqualifying her from running for a government position, derailing her possible bid for the presidency.