Sara raps return from the dead

Well ahead of this year’s Halloween?

The House prosecution panel is taking to the Office of the Ombudsman allegations it withdrew from the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, raising questions about why charges it no longer intends to pursue before senator-judges are being brought to another forum.

Manila Rep. Joel Chua on Sunday said the panel was prepared to submit its evidence on the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) between 2023 and 2024 for possible criminal proceedings against Duterte.

The confidential funds issue was among the three articles of impeachment the House prosecution panel withdrew on 13 October, leaving unexplained wealth as the remaining charge before the Senate impeachment court.

Chua insisted that dropping the articles did not mean Duterte was exempt from accountability, arguing that the allegations could still be pursued through criminal proceedings.

“Well, first of all, since the amount involved is P612 million, it is too high for the threshold of plunder, so that’s one. Aside from, of course, there is malversation, so forth and so on,” Chua said.

“But this is the most compelling that we see, plunder, because of the amount involved,” he added.

Ombudsman awaits

The lawmaker acknowledged that the Office of the Ombudsman would determine the appropriate charges. Republic Act 7080 sets P50 million as the threshold for plunder, which involves the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth through a series of criminal acts.

Chua said impeachment and criminal proceedings carried different penalties, with impeachment resulting in removal from office and perpetual disqualification from public office, while criminal proceedings could lead to imprisonment.

“It does not mean that when you get convicted through the impeachment that you will be imprisoned, because the penalty there is just the removal from office and perpetual disqualification from public office. Now, the criminal and civil aspects, that’s different,” he said.

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said on 16 October that his office was collating and evaluating information on Duterte’s confidential funds.

Remulla said the office would communicate with House prosecutors to obtain evidence for a possible case against Duterte before the Sandiganbayan.

“Of course, our deadline at the Ombudsman is always yesterday. That’s why we always act with urgency. We just have to make sure that it will stand in court,” he said when asked about the timeline for filing a possible criminal case.

Questions

Chua said the House prosecution panel was prepared to submit the evidence it had presented and gathered during the impeachment proceedings.

He recalled that during the 19th Congress, the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, which he chaired, transmitted its committee reports on the same issue to the Ombudsman.

The panel’s move leaves an obvious question: If the confidential funds allegations warrant a criminal case, why did the prosecutors withdraw them from the impeachment trial?

Aside from the confidential funds issue, the prosecution panel also withdrew its allegations that Duterte made grave threats against high-ranking public officials and bribed DepEd officials.

The Senate impeachment trial is set to resume on 9 November, when Duterte’s lawyers will begin presenting evidence in response to the allegations of unexplained wealth.