Was there money to vote ‘sufficiency’ to impeach Sara?

Representative Rufus Rodriguez voted in favor of the sufficiency of two impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, despite earlier manifesting against them. As a legal expert he had argued against the jurisdiction of the committee over Sara as the secretary of education.

Key Details:

1. Surprising Vote: Reports indicated surprise at his vote, as he was previously seen as opposing the sufficiency of the complaints.

2. Specific Grounds: Rodriguez indicated that at least one of the grounds had sufficient factual basis to proceed.

3. Contradictory Arguments: Although he voted for the substance in the end, he argued that her actions taken as DepEd Secretary were not within the scope of the impeachment.

This unexpected turn in his position was highlighted by observers as part of the committee’s decision-making process.

4. His vote was part of the 54-member majority that pushed the complaints to the next stage. Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay was the only member who voted against the motion.

The House Committee on Justice has since issued a notice to Vice President Duterte, giving her 10 days to file a formal response to the allegations.

While there have been public allegations and social media rumors regarding financial incentives, House leaders have categorically denied that lawmakers were given “ayuda” or monetary considerations in exchange for their “yes” votes.

Overview of allegations

and denials

1. Official Denial: Rep. Ramon Rodriguez Gutierrez denied claims that financial incentives were provided to secure votes asserting that support for the impeachment was based strictly on the “merits of the case.”

2. Public Sentiment: Social media discussions frequently used terms like “maleta” (suitcase) to imply bribery or systemic corruption during the proceedings, but no evidence has been presented to substantiate these specific claims of monetary payoffs for the sufficiency vote.

3. Legal Focus: Committee Chair Rep. Gerville Luistro emphasized that the proceedings were decided based on constitutional processes and the evidence rather than public sentiment or outside influence.

Did the Catholic vote influence the ‘sufficiency’ vote?

While it is difficult to quantify the specific “Catholic vote” among individual lawmakers, the Catholic Church was a direct and influential force in the movement that led to the 4 March sufficiency vote.

1. Direct Involvement in Filing

a) The Clergy as Petitioners: One of the two impeachment complaints declared “sufficient in substance” was filed by a group of clergy and lawyers led by Catholic priest Fr. Joel Saballa.

b) Moral Framing: These religious leaders officially framed the impeachment as an issue of “moral concern” rather than just a political one, specifically citing the alleged misuse of public funds as a betrayal of public trust.

2. Institutional Pressure from the CBCP

a) Official Support: The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines consistently issued statements urging the legislature to proceed with the impeachment process to uphold truth and accountability.

b) Moral Imperative: High-ranking officials like Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David and Archbishop Socrates Villegas have publicly argued that delaying or obstructing the impeachment trial is a “grave sin of omission.”

Email: arturobesana2@gmail.com