House prosecutor: Compressing impeachment trial would deny due process

"Yung away ng magkapitbahay, hindi yan nare-resolve sa Katarungang Pambarangay in one day," San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora said of the proposal to compress the impeachment trial into a period of less than three weeks.
House impeachment prosecutor and San Juan City Representative Ysabel Maria Zamora on Tuesday said that the proposal to compress the timeline of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte would deny both sides due process—and advised Senator Robin Padilla to review the Constitution after he filed a resolution to dismiss the impeachment complaint outright.
'Senator Padilla has to maybe review the Constitution. Maybe some of his advisors should advise him on constitutional law and that you cannot kill an impeachment by mere resolution,' Zamora told reporters in an interview.
Zamora also opposed Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino's resolution for a compressed impeachment trial timeline of 19 days.
'Well, for me, that compressed timeline is unacceptable. Not acceptable for the simple reason that it will deny due process to both sides,' she said.
The Senate on Tuesday finally convened as an impeachment court to put Duterte on trial over seven articles of impeachment, including the question of how P612.5 million in confidential funds was spent.
Zamora said two days each is not enough for the House prosecution panel and the defense to present all of their evidence.
'This is both on a procedural side and on the substantive side of due process. Ang naisip ko nga po, yung away ng magkapitbahay, hindi yan nare-resolve sa Katarungang Pambarangay in one day [A dispute among neighbors cannot be resolved by the barangay justice system in one day]. What more an impeachment case against the Vice President where we have numerous voluminous documents or evidence to present. So we have to give both parties their right to due process,' she said.
She also revealed that for five hours on Monday, the House prosecution panel practiced the reading of the Articles of Impeachment by House prosecutor and Batangas Representative Gerville Luistro and responding to possible questions that will be raised by the senators.
About 15 private prosecutors joined the House prosecutors during the rehearsal, she added.
Meanwhile House spokesperson Princess Abante said the House welcomed Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero's taking his oath as the impeachment court's presiding officer on Monday evening.
"Ginalaw na po ang baso [They have made their presence felt]," she said. 'The House of Representatives welcomes this development… Nakinig na po ang Senado sa mga pahayag, hindi lang ng Kamara, kundi ng iba't ibang sektor ng lipunan [The Senate has listened to the calls, not just by the Congress, but by different sectors of society].'
On Padilla's resolution to dismiss the impeachment complaint, Abante said, 'The Speaker has always said that he leaves it to the discretion of the Senate on how they will act on the impeachment trial. But there are various experts, both from the academe and the legal sectors, that state [that] the senator-judges cannot move to dismiss the trial on their own.'
'Ang hiling lang po natin, maging faithful sila sa alituntinin ng Konstitusyon [Our only request is that they remain faithful to the rules of the Constitution]. Because in a society that follows the rule of law, the Constitution will always be supreme,' Abante added.
President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos has also said that it is clear the impeachment proceedings will cross over from the current 19th Congress to the 20th Congress.
'Naging senator-judge din si President Bongbong Marcos. I understand where he's coming from. Ang importante sa Kamara ngayon, masimulan ang impeachment trial [President Marcos has been a senator-judge himself...What's important is that the impeachment trial begin],' Abante said.
'Ang nakalagay naman sa Konstitusyon ay to try and decide. Hindi naman sinabi roon kung anong Congress ang magde-decide. Ang sinasabi ay simulan at tapusin at magbigay ng desisyon ang Senado,' she explained.
(What it says in the Constitution is to try and decide. It does not say which Congress will decide. What it says is to begin the trial, end the trial, and hand down the Senate's decision.)
Abante also said Vice President Duterte's present personal trip abroad will not derail the proceedings.
'I believe the impeachment rules have, meron naman siyang nakalagay kung paano ang pag-serve at notify sa accused. Ang requirement kasi diyan is personal service pero meron din naman sa rules if personal service cannot be made. Ang importante, simulan na ng Senado ang trial para alam na rin natin kung ano na yung mga susunod na hakbang ng prosecutors at ano na ang mangyayari sa impeachment process,' Abante stressed.
(I believe the impeachment rules have a provision on how the accused may be notified. the requirement is personal service but there are also rules for when personal service cannot be made. What's important is that the Senate being the trial so that we the prosecutors will know the next steps to take and what will happen in the impeachment process.)
Abante declined to comment on the Duterte defense team's allegations that the impeachment complaint is flawed, saying this is already the subject of the Vice President's petition before the Supreme Court challenging the House impeachment.
Abante also defended the House of Representatives from Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero's pronouncements that the House also dilly-dallied on the impeachment complaints.
'I believe the House of Representatives did its job in a timely and decisive manner. Again, [the role of the] House of Representatives is to receive the complaint, to verify the complaint as to its form, substance and grounds, to make sure that it will be properly passed by the correct number of members of the House of Representatives, and it will be transmitted to the Senate. All these were done by the House of Representatives in a timely and decisive manner. Kung gaano katagal o kung gaano kabilis, hindi na yan kasama sa kailangang alalahanin ng Senado. Ang kailangang alalahanin ng Senado ay ang kanilang tungkulin sa impeachment process ayon sa Konstitusyon. Sabi ng Konstitusyon, proceed forthwith,' Abante said.
(However long or quickly it took, it's not part of what the Senate must remember, and that is it is their duty according to the Constitution to proceed with the trial forthwith.)
Asked for her reaction to Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa's claim that the country will be further divided by an impeachment trial, Abante replied, 'Well, ang impeachment trial, provided 'to ng Constitution. Merong mga dahilan para pagdaanan ito. Kung siguro unnecessary ang mga impeachment proceedings in all governments, dapat wala ito sa Constitution, di ba? So ako, tingin ko, kailangan munang masimulan at ang ating mga Senator-judges, makinig doon sa paglahad ng mga ebidensya and they will have the opportunity to decide on the case.'
(An impeachment trial is provided for in the Constitution. There are reasons why it must be undertaken. If impeachment proceedings are unnecessary, than it wouldn't be in the Constitution, right? So, as I see it, the trial must first begin and the senator-judges must listen to the evidence as it is laid out and they will have the opportunity to decide on the case.) — BM, GMA Integrated News

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

GMA Network

4 hours ago

• GMA Network

Ombudsman on House panel saying it did not file complaint vs. VP Sara: Then why give us committee report copy?

Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Saturday questioned the House why its committee gave them a copy of its report on its investigation into the allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte. This was after House spokesperson Princess Abante on Friday said the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability did not file a criminal and administrative complaint against Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman. "Eh bakit ba nila kami fu-furnish-an ng kopya ng result ng kanilang investigation? Ano 'yun, gagawin naming ano, pardon the word, pero ano 'yun, gagawin naming scratch paper? Ano 'yon? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives kaya hindi kami dapat furnish-an ng kopya," Martires said in an interview on Dobol B TV. (Then why did they furnish us a copy of the result of their investigation? What is that? Do they expect us to, pardon the word, use it as scratch paper? What's that? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives so we should not have been furnished a copy [of the report].) Abante made the clarification in light of the Office of the Ombudsman's June 19 order asking Duterte to answer complaints of technical malversation, falsification, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. The Ombudsman order identified the House good government and public accountability panel as the complainant. 'Unang una, hindi ang House ang nag-file ng (First of all, the House did not file the) complaint. What the House initiated was the impeachment trial through the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment,' Abante said in a press conference. Abante said that the House only furnished Martires a copy of the recommendations of the panel resulting from its inquiry on the budget use of Duterte, including the disbursement of confidential funds. Confused? Martires meanwhile on Saturday said Abante may just have been confused. "Siguro naguguluhan lang sila o naguguluhan lang 'yung spokesperson. Ang nag-endorse sa amin ng committee report ng House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability ay ang Secretary General mismo. At sinasabi ng Secretary General, sa kanyang sulat, na itong committee report ni Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives," he said. (Maybe they are just confused or the spokesperson is confused. The one who endorsed to us the committee report of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability is the Secretary General himself. And the Secretary General said in his letter that the committee report of Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives.) READ: House adopts panel report urging plunder, other raps vs. Sara Duterte "So ang naging complainant dito na ginawa namin is the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. 'Yun. So sino ang gagawin naming complainant?" Martires said. (So we made the complainant the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. That's it. So who should we make as complainant?) Martires cited the Pharmally case in connection with the government's purchase of P4 billion worth of RT-PCR test kits. "If we remember the Pharmally case, it was not even a committee report kasi hindi lahat ng mga senador ay nag-concur kay (because not all senators concurred with) Senador Richard Gordon at sa (and with the) committee report. It is just considered as a mere result of an investigation of the Blue Ribbon Committee," he said. "Ang naging complainant du'n ay sina [former] Senador Gordon at Senador Risa Hontiveros (The complainants there became Senator Gordon and Senator Risa Hontiveros), representing the Blue Ribbon Committee," Martires said. He said he did not even hear a whisper thereafter from Gordon asking why he was made the complainant. "Si Senadora Imee, nag-file din ng kaso 'di ba, lately lang. Sino ang complainant du'n? (Senator Imee also filed a case recently. Who was the complainant?) 'Yung Senate Committee on Foreign Relations represented by Imee Marcos," the Ombudsman said. "Eh dito, sino ang magiging complainant? Alangan namang kami ang complainant? Hindi kami ang nag-imbestiga ng kaso," Martires said. (In this case, who will be the complainant? It can't be us. We did not investigate the case.) "Nanggaling sa kanila at detalyado ang (It came from them and it detailed the) offenses that were allegedly committed by the Vice President and some of the employees and officers of DepEd [Department of Education] and the Office of the Vice President," he added. Martires said the House panel's committee report "was treated as a complaint." He explained further: "Wala naman kaming pinagkaiba sa piskalya sa public prosecutor's office ng Department of Justice. Kapag nag-file ka ng reklamo sa prosecutor's office, ikaw ang nagrereklamo at hindi 'yung piskal." (It is not any different from a fiscal at the public prosecutor's office of the Department of Justice. When you file a complaint at the prosecutor's office, you are the one complaining, not the fiscal.) "Pero kung finile ng piskal 'yung iyong reklamo, nakita niya may katuturan, may katotohanan, finile sa husgado, ang nagrereklamo du'n ay hindi na 'yung complainant kundi ang People of the Philippines," Martires added. (But if the fiscal filed the case because he saw it was relevant and truthful, and he filed it in court, the complainant will not be the person but the People of the Philippines.) GMA News Online contacted Abante to get her comment but has yet to receive a reply as of posting time. Probe to continue The Ombudsman will continue the investigation into the allegations against Duterte, he said. "Itutuloy namin ang imbestigasyon [kay Vice Pres. Duterte]. Para ano at binigyan kami ng kopya ng report ng investigation. Para ano? Para basahin lang namin?" Martires said. (We will continue the probe. For what purpose were we given a copy of the report of the investigation? For what? For us just to read?) "Diretso ang aming imbestigasyon," he added. (We will continue with our investigation.) "Bibigyan namin ang Kamara ng (We will give the House) sufficient time to file also their pledge from the time that they received a copy of the counter affidavit of the Vice President and the other respondents," Martires said. If the House committee does not want to cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman, then they may have to use their power to cite them in contempt, he said. "Kung ayaw nilang makipag-cooperate sa amin, we might be forced, mapipilitan kami na gamitin ang aming power to cite them in contempt," Martires said. (If they do not want to cooperate with us, we might be forced to use our power to cite them in contempt.) "Hindi kami nagbibiro. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng taumbayan. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng Konstitusyon... Ano, bibigyan kami ng sulat, nirereklamo mo isang barangay captain, ano, babasahin lang namin?" he added. (We are not joking. This is a job given to us by the public. It is our duty given by the Constitution. If we will be given a letter of complaint against a barangay captain, will we just read it [and not do anything]?) Asked who will be cited in contempt in this matter, Martires said: "Aba'y 'di kung sino ang ayaw mag-... (Whoever does not want...) Kasi this is a committee represented by Representative Joel Chua. So we'll ask Representative Joel Chua once the Vice President or any of the respondents there will file their counter affidavit. We will ask the committee kung gusto nilang mag-file (if they want to file a) ng reply. Kung hindi (If not), it will be submitted now for resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman." If the committee does not want to file a reply, the Ombudsman will then consider them having waived their right to reply. "Ngayon 'pag sinabi nilang, 'Ay hindi naman kami nag-file sa inyo,' if they insist on doing that, ay siguro naman... I am not threatening them, eh siguro hindi na ito magandang relasyon between the House of Representatives at Office of the Ombudsman na ayaw nating mangyari," Martires said. (Now if they say, 'But we did not file [the complaint with you], if they insist on doing that, then maybe... I am not threatening them, maybe this signifies a not so good relationship between the House of Representatives and the Office of the Ombudsman that we do not want to see.) "I think they should cooperate with us because they are the ones na kumbaga sa ano, kinalabit kami, kiniliti kami (we were the ones contacted)," he added. Ample time Martires said once Duterte and the other respondents give their counter affidavit, the House of Representatives will be furnished a copy. "Sila mismo, si Vice President mismo ang magfu-furnish ng copy sa kanila," he said. (The Office of the Vice President will furnish them a copy.) But what if Duterte says why should I give my counter affidavit to the Ombudsman when there is no complainant? Martires replied: "E tingnan natin kung ano ang kahihinatnan (then let's see what would happen)." "Hindi namin puwedeng isantabi, we cannot close our eyes, hindi namin puwedeng ipikit ang aming mga mata na merong isang reklamo na ibinigay sa amin, 'di ba," he said. (We cannot ignore it, we cannot close our eyes to a complaint given to us, right?) "Hindi pa kami umaabot du'n sa puntos ng pagde-determine ng probable cause. Nakita lang namin du'n sa report na may sufficient na ebidensiya. So gusto naming sagutin ng mga respondent. We advised Vice President Sara 'yung nakasaad sa report na 'yun," Martires said. (We have not yet reached the point where we will determine if there is probable cause. We just saw in the report that there is sufficient evidence. So we want the respondents to give their response. We advised Vice President Sara that this is what is in the report.) "Du'n kami magde-determine, based on counter affidavit at du'n sa report. Pag-aaralan namin. If there is a probable cause, then we will make that determination later on," he added. (That's where we will determine [if there is probable cause], based on the counter affidavit and the report. We will study them.) Martires said they have not received word yet from the Office of the Vice President on whether the respondents will submit a counter affidavit. "Wala naman (No, we haven't received any word). Although natanggap na ng (But it was received by the) Office of the Vice President. Siguro naman (Maybe) they will submit the counter affidavit within that period of 10 days," he said. The OVP said it received the Ombudsman's order at about 9 a.m. Friday, June 20. —with a report from Jamil Santos/KG, GMA Integrated News

GMA Network

6 hours ago

• GMA Network

Marcos on influencing Sara Duterte impeachment: I choose not to

President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. has said it is his decision not to influence the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, insisting that the matter is in the hands of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Marcos made the remark in an episode of the BBM Podcast on Saturday, when he was asked about views that the President has a say in the decision of the impeachment court even with separation of powers between branches of government. "If a president chooses to do that, I choose not to," Marcos said. Duterte has brushed off Marcos' pronouncements that he was not in favor of her impeachment, as their feud continued to simmer with lawmakers pressing forward with House investigations and endorsing the impeachment complaint to the Senate. Advocacy groups, meanwhile, have called out Marcos for conveying a supposed lack of urgency to make Duterte accountable. Marcos has said the impeachment will take Congress' attention away from passing important pieces of legislation. Speaking on the podcast, Marcos reiterated that he has been preoccupied with lowering retail prices of rice and improving public transportation, among other initiatives of his administration. The Chief Executive stood pat that the impeachment process lies with the legislative branch. "That's not my, I'm busy with the transport, with the rice, all of the different things that we are doing, that, that nauubos ang oras ko doon. Put it bluntly. Wala naman akong papel doon sa impeachment eh," the President said. (That's not my, I'm busy with the transport, with the rice, all of the different things that we are doing. My time is devoted to these things. I have no role in the impeachment.) Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero has denied that Marcos was behind the delay in the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Relations between Marcos and Duterte, running mates in Eleksyon 2022, have turned frosty following House probes into the drug war under the administration of her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, as well as the handling of confidential funds by offices under her leadership. Last Thursday, House Secretary General Reginald Velasco said the Vice President will not be attending Marcos' fourth State of the Nation Address (SONA) on July 28. Malacañang has said it is her choice if she prefers not to attend the event. — VDV, GMA Integrated News

GMA Network

21 hours ago

• GMA Network

House prosecution says impeachment court spox should not speak for VP Sara

Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol should speak for the court, not for the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte, House prosecution panel spokesperson and lawyer Antonio Bucoy said Friday. Bucoy was reacting to Tongol's comments on Thursday when he said that there is a high chance that the Vice President will make a motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint. Tongol said, 'Ang action na ini-expect natin from the defense by filing an ad cautelam appearance—na magpa-file sila ng either answer with affirmative defense questioning the jurisdiction, or a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.' (We expect the defense to question the jurisdiction of file a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.) 'As spokesperson, he is the mouthpiece of the court. He expresses the mindset of the court. [But] he's telegraphing the defense to file a motion to dismiss,' Bucoy told GMA News Online in a text message. 'Recall that the partiality of some members of the court had already been raised as an issue. I priorly stated that while I am prepared to give the judges the benefit of a doubt, the spokesperson's subject statement convinces me otherwise,' Bucoy added. House spokesperson Princess Abante agreed. 'Do not speak for the defense. Speak for the impeachment court,' Abante said of Tongol. 'That is why we are saying that what we want is a Senate impeachment court that is ready to accept the evidence, listen to the evidence and decide based on the evidence presented,' Abante added. In a "24 Oras" report by Saleema Refran, Tongol said, "Hindi pag-aabogado sa isang panig o paglilito sa publiko ngunit pagsagot lamang sa scenario setting na tanong sa akin nang naayon sa aking karanasan sa litigation." "Ito ay bahagi ng ating tungkulin hindi lamang bilang spokesperson ngunit bilang abogado rin upang ipaliwanang ang legal proceedings sa lahat," he also said. "The Impeachment Court is committed to neutrality, fairness and due process. Respect for the court is fundamental to democracy, so it is vital for the stability of this democracy for all to work together with mutual respect…and for litigants to avoid unnecessary attacks that only serve to hinder our collective efforts to proceed with the impeachment process," Tongol added. In a separate statement, House lead prosecutor and 4Ps party-list Representative Marcelino Libanan commended the senator-judges who uphold decorum and refrain from public commentary, but he did not mention names. 'We commend our senator-judges who have chosen the high road of restraint. Silence, in the context of an ongoing trial, is not passivity—it is professionalism,' Libanan said. 'In this highly charged political moment, those who speak least may actually understand the gravity of their judicial role the most. They recognize that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is a constitutional tribunal—not a venue for political theater," Libanan added. Libanan then cited the Constitution's demand for neutrality from judges in any legal or quasi-legal proceeding. 'Every statement a judge makes outside the courtroom is a potential challenge to fairness inside it. The discipline shown by some senators is therefore not just admirable—it's essential,' Libanan said. 'We urge all senator-judges to uphold the same level of discretion. Let the facts and the Constitution—not noise—shape the outcome of this process,' he added. Over 200 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment complaint against Vice President on February 5, accusing her of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.—LDF, GMA Integrated News