VP vows to come clean on charges

VP vows to come clean on charges | Daily Tribune

Vice President Sara Duterte has vowed to answer all the allegations regarding her purported misuse of confidential funds, which was one of the grounds for her impeachment, in the proper forum.

“If there’s a case, we’ll explain it in the proper forum. We said when they filed the articles of impeachment that the defense team will be ready to answer the accusations of the House of Representatives prosecutors,” Duterte said in an interview on Monday at the Kadayawan Festival in Davao City.

“When the case reached the Supreme Court, we provided everything the Court requested. In the proper forums and venues, we give the appropriate answers and explanations to the accusations,” she added.

The Vice President, however, stressed the accusations should not be a mere “moro-moro” or allegations with partisan motives.

“There can’t be a sham proceeding where accusations are made only where and when they want to accuse someone,” she said.

Barrage of complaints

It may be recalled that three impeachment complaints were filed in the House of Representatives against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected to her alleged misuse of confidential funds.

It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of the lawmakers that was transmitted to the Senate as the articles of impeachment.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the articles of impeachment were unconstitutional.

Last week, the Senate voted to archive the articles of impeachment against Duterte, following the decision of the High Court declaring her impeachment unconstitutional.

Optimistic House

The House, meanwhile, is confident the Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of its petition seeking to overturn the tribunal’s decision that declared the impeachment of Duterte unconstitutional, null, and void ab initio (from the beginning).

“The House of Representatives is very hopeful that the Supreme Court will reverse its decision, primarily because of the factual premise on which the first decision was based,” House spokesperson Princess Abante said in an interview.

“If there is a discrepancy in the factual basis of the decision, especially if it contradicts the official record of the House of Representatives, then the Supreme Court’s decision can very well be reversed,” Abante said.

The House official was explicitly referring to the salient points raised by the SC in striking down the VP’s impeachment on 25 July. This included the fact that the House transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate “without a plenary vote,” as cited in a news report.

The media network, however, was quick to debunk the SC’s conclusion, saying its news article contained no such claim.

Another key contributing factor to the potential reversal was the SC’s introduction of a new set of requirements that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Abante said these grave errors committed by the High Court strengthen the House’s position in aggressively seeking a thorough review of its ruling.

“Even on the issue of adding a requirement, in the second mode of initiating an impeachment, the legal argument presented by counsel of the House of Representatives, the Office of the Solicitor General, was also strong. That’s why we can see that there is a high possibility the decision may still be changed — precisely what the House is hoping for,” Abante averred.

Complainants seek reversal

Complainants in the third impeachment complaint asked the SC to reverse and set aside its 25 July decision declaring unconstitutional the fourth impeachment complaint against VP Duterte for violating the one-year-bar rule and her right to due process.

The movants in their motion for reconsideration in intervention argued that they have a legal interest to intervene in the case since they stand to be affected by the Court’s ruling.

They noted that the fourth impeachment complaint against Duterte was built on the strength of the first three impeachment complaints, which were archived by the House but were deemed dismissed by the Court in its 25 July decision.

They claimed that any ruling on the impeachment of the Vice President also affected the cause of the movant-intervenors as complainants of the third impeachment complaint.

The movants argued that the House neither neglected nor failed to act on the first three impeachment complaints, as these were included in the Order of Business within the required 10 session days.

“The number of complaints filed did not matter. So long as the complaints had been referred within the given period (i.e., 10 session days and three session days), the House violated no constitutional provisions,” they stressed.