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.