Solon questions VP Duterte’s distance from lawyers’ SC petition

House Committee on Justice member Terry Ridon claimed that it was difficult to believe that Vice President Sara Duterte had no involvement and was not consulted in the recent petition filed by her lawyers to the Supreme Court.

The Bicol Saro Rep. reportedly told a media organization that Duterte’s defense counsel were present with her during an event held in Davao City this past Saturday, March 28.

“Walang maniniwalang walang alam ang Pangalawang Pangulo tungkol sa Supreme Court petition ng kanyang mga abogado at kaalyado," he said.

Lawyers of the Vice President formally submitted a petition to the Supreme Court last Friday, March 27, to urge the judicial body to issue a temporary restraining order on the Justice panel for alleged constitutional violations regarding the impeachment proceedings.

Long-time defense attorney of Duterte, Atty. Israelito Torreon, claimed that the committee was going against its duty of evaluating complaints and was instead conducting its own investigation in an attempt to build a case against the Vice President.

During the event in Davao, Duterte asserted that her lawyers worked independently as they did not consult her prior to the submission of the petition, claiming that she was setting aside the proceedings and was instead focused on other pressing concerns in the community.

The Vice President also thanked her lawyers and allies for their subconscious effort of holding the Justice committee accountable for a process that she has repeatedly claimed was “unconstitutional.”

“Syempre, nakapasalamat ako sa mga lawyers, independent lawyers na hindi kasama sa defense team na nag-iisip pa rin na ipaglaban ang ating Saligang Batas at kontrahin ang pag-abuso ng proseso ng impeachment,” she said.

Step-by-step

Aside from Ridon, lawmakers within the committee have argued against the Duterte camp’s sentiments, noting that they were acting well within their jurisdiction and that they were ensuring that the impeachment process was followed “step by step” as mandated under the constitution.

San Juan Lone District Rep. Ysabel Zamora maintained that it was acting on the orders of the high court that flagged impeachment complaints last year, stating that complaints against the Vice President would have to first go through the Justice committee for scrutiny.

“Sila po ay nag-question sa Supreme Court of the Philippines, saying that the way we filed the impeachment was unconstitutional, that we should follow due process and afford the Vice President her rights under the Constitution. And this will be done by going through the Committee on Justice,” she said, pertaining to the petition of Duterte’s camp last year.

Part of those constitutional rights were for Duterte to participate and respond to the complaints against her indicated in the two complaints submitted and found sufficient in form, substance, and grounds by the committee.

However, Justice Committee Chairperson Gerville Luistro said that Duterte’s responses to the findings of the committee were more inclined to question the process itself rather than addressing the allegations.

Luistro claimed that Duterte’s Ad Cautelam submitted prior to the hearings on sufficiency on grounds was “non-answer” and seemed more like a “motion to dismiss.”

“We respect the opinion of the camp of the Vice President, but of course we’ve been very cautious in complying with our rules,” she said.

The justice panel is set to conduct its second hearing into the determination of probable cause regarding the two impeachment complaints against Duterte on April 14.

During the first hearing, committee members voted on the issuance of various subpoenas with regards to obtaining pre-existing evidence such as the Vice President’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth and the affidavit of alleged “bagman” Ramil Madriaga.