Duterte camp cries ‘double standards’ in impeachment process

The camp of Vice President Sara Duterte accused the House of Representatives on Monday of applying “double standards” in handling the impeachment complaints against her, as she submitted her formal response to the House Committee on Justice.

In her verified answer ad cautelam, Duterte’s lawyers argued that the lower chamber treated her case differently compared to the impeachment attempts against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.. 

“On the contrary, it appears from the televised proceedings of this Committee that the serious accusations against the President and other high-ranking public officials were summarily disregarded. By doing so, it becomes even more manifest that double standards were employed in the treatment of the impeachment complaints against the latter and the Vice President,” the Duterte camp said.

They claimed the committee moved with unusual speed and applied rules inconsistently, which they said violated her right to due process.

“In other words, unequal standards were applied in evaluating the allegations against parties similarly situated insofar as the complaints filed against both the President and Vice President alleged grounds for their impeachment. Here, the testimonies of supposed resource persons during the QuadComm hearings in 2024, despite being elicited through leading questions and under circumstances suggesting pressure under threat of contempt, were given probative value and relied upon as bases for these complaints,” they said.

“In contrast, serious allegations revolving around misuse and corruption of billions of public funds, appeared to have been summarily set aside to justify the dismissal of the impeachment complaints against the President. This unequal treatment reflects an uneven application of standards and scrutiny in the determination of sufficiency in form and substance of the complaints against the Vice President,” they added.

Motion to dismiss

Meanwhile, House Justice Committee chair Gerville Luistro rejected the “double standard” accusation of the vice president, saying the panel applied the same rule to both officials: proof of personal participation.

Luistro said the impeachment complaints against Marcos failed at the committee level because complainants could not show any act directly linking the President to the alleged offenses — a requirement established by jurisprudence.

“Walang personal participation doon kay Presidente,” Luistro said, explaining that the committee repeatedly asked complainants for proof tying Marcos to the allegations of corruption, but “none was presented.”

“Dito kay VP, very clear ang personal participation,” Luistro added, arguing that this “factual nexus” strengthened the sufficiency of the complaints against Duterte but was absent in the President’s case.

Luistro also criticized Duterte’s filing, saying it did not answer the accusations point-by-point and instead resembled a prohibited pleading.

“While I was reading the answer, it looks like a motion to dismiss,” he said, adding that the Vice President did not respond to the specific offenses alleged. Because of this, she said, the accusations appear “unrebutted.”

“Since hindi sinagot directly, it is as if tinanggap ang allegations,” Luistro said.

Downplay

Duterte’s camp also dismissed concerns over the Notice of Disallowance on the Office of the Vice President’s ₱73-million confidential fund spending in 2022, stressing that the ruling is not yet final and is currently under appeal.

“In its deliberations of the Saballa and Cabrera Complaints, this Committee disregarded the Petition for Review in Sara Z. Duterte, et al. v. Nilda B. Plaras, docketed as COA CP Case No. 2024-0194 before the Commission on Audit (COA), notwithstanding that the subject of that appeal is the Notice of Disallowance involving the same confidential funds that constitute the principal basis of the accusations therein," they said.

The camp also said the inclusion of Duterte’s former aide, Ramil Madriaga, in the impeachment trial does not make the allegations credible. 

Madriaga, who is allegedly a bagman for the Vice President, previously asked the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate Duterte for corrupt practices.

However, the Vice President previously denied any connections with Madriaga, insisting that she was introduced to the alleged bagger in 2018 through her father. 

“The impeachment complaints fail to demonstrate how the alleged acts supposedly committed by the Vice President could constitute 'other high crimes' that rise to the level of impeachable offenses, let alone criminal acts by themselves. All told, there is nothing in the impeachment complaints that demonstrates any ultimate facts pointing to a coherent, credible account or narration of any impeachable conduct,” it added. 

COA disallowed about ₱73 million out of the ₱125 million confidential funds spent by the office, citing insufficient documentation and expenditures that auditors said may not be related to intelligence activities.

Under auditing rules, a notice of disallowance is issued when expenses are deemed irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable. However, the finding does not automatically establish wrongdoing because officials named in the notice may challenge it through an appeal process.

If an appeal is filed, the disallowance undergoes further review and does not become final until the process is resolved. Should the disallowance be upheld with finality, the officials involved may be required to refund the amount flagged by auditors.

The rapid disbursement of ₱125 million within 11 days in late 2022  has been cited by some lawmakers as among the grounds for the impeachment complaints being examined by the House Committee on Justice.

Mary Grace Piattos

The impeachment complaints also make reference to individuals allegedly linked to confidential fund transactions, including a figure identified online as “Mary Grace Piattos.”

However, Duterte’s lawyer and former spokesperson for the Department of Education, Michael Poa, said in a radio interview that he never made any statements about such a person “surfacing” or being presented as a witness.

“Wala akong nasabing ilalabas or something like that,” he said.

He addressed online claims suggesting contradictory statements from his office but described the matter as “water under the bridge” after clarifications were issued.

Poa added that if questions about the person’s identity — whether alias or real name — are raised, these must be answered only within legal bounds because they involve confidential operations. 

“We have to be able to explain it, but within the bounds allowed by law,” he said.

“Mary Grace Piattos” supposedly received P70,000 for medicines on 30 December 2022, but has no birth, marriage, or death records with the Philippine Statistics Authority. 

Duterte is currently facing impeachment charges in the House of Representatives of her alleged misuse of confidential funds, culpable violation, and other high crimes.