1 week ago
6
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — “There is nothing for [the] respondent to answer.”
This was how Vice President Sara Duterte addressed the impeachment allegations against her in a 15-page answer ad cautelam submitted on Monday, March 16.
Instead of directly responding to the accusations — as some lawmakers pointed out — Duterte broadly denied the claims, calling them “false, misleading, impertinent, and mere conclusions of fact and law.”
Duterte also questioned the panel’s impartiality, accusing the justice committee of applying double standards in dismissing complaints against President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. while declaring those against her as “sufficient in substance.”
She said the complaints against Marcos were rejected for lacking a clear nexus and evidence, and asked why the same was not used in evaluating the cases against her.
So, just what did the vice president have to say about the specific allegations found in the third and fourth impeachment complaint?
For all the allegations, Duterte basically argued that the complaints failed to present “ultimate facts,” which she said should be allegations backed by undeniable evidence. Hypothetical admissions of truth or legal conclusions should not be considered, she added.
Misuse of P612.5 million confidential funds
At the center of the complaints are allegations of plunder, malversation, and graft against Duterte. It involves the alleged misuse of P500 million confidential funds in the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and P112.5 million in the Department of Education (DepEd).
Complainants pointed to irregularities in disbursement procedures observed in the testimonies of OVP and DepEd staff. They claimed that special disbursing officers did not properly manage the funds, which were instead allegedly handled by Duterte’s security personnel.
They also cited acknowledgement receipts bearing what they described as “fictitious” names and questionable or inconsistent signatures of supposed beneficiaries.
Duterte, however, did not address these specific allegations with rebuttals. She simply denied them.
The complaints further referenced the sworn affidavit of self-confessed bagman Ramil Madriaga, allegedly Duterte’s former aide, who claimed he personally delivered the P125 million in confidential funds reportedly spent over 11 days in December 2022.
This involves the same P125 million in confidential funds that the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed, particularly P73 million due to missing supporting documents on how the funds were used.
For the vice president, the justice committee should have taken into account that the OVP had already filed an appeal and submitted the required documents in response to the notice of disallowance, adding that COA has yet to resolve the matter.
On Madriaga’s testimony, Duterte said he made only “sweeping allegations” and “failed to support his claims with any shred of evidence.”
Bribery
Duterte also faces bribery allegations when she was DepEd secretary after former high-ranking officials of the agency testified before the good government committee that they received cash envelopes of P50,000 each on multiple occasions.
Three DepEd officials attested to this, with some saying they were told the cash envelopes came from the vice president.
Duterte shrugged this claim, asserting that the complainants were unable to present “competent evidence” demonstrating her unlawful use of public funds or that she personally benefited from the alleged bribery.
She also argued that the complaints did not contain any proof that she “persuaded, induced, or influenced another public officer to perform any act.”
“Neither is there any ultimate facts showing that the Vice President allowed herself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit any act in exchange of any consideration or of the alleged monetary benefit,” the answer ad cautelam read.
Death threats vs. Marcos
One of the allegations that lawmakers of the justice panel found most compelling against the vice president was the death threats she issued against Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
While it is undeniable that she explicitly said she had contacted someone to have them killed should she die, Duterte insisted her words were not enough to constitute an impeachable offense as there’s no proof she had contracted an assassin to do so.
“The Impeachment complaints likewise brazenly accuse the Vice President of entering into a supposed ‘contract to kill’ yet they fail to present any shred of proof that any such contract ever existed,” Duterte’s response read.
Unexplained wealth
Duterte also maintained that impeachment requires acts committed during an official’s incumbency, not before assumption of office.
She said the complaint cites alleged unexplained wealth from her time as Davao City mayor and vice mayor and not when she became vice president.
The complainants, however, argued that any earlier unlawful acquisition of assets or failure to disclose wealth in her SALN bears on her fitness for her present position.
“So, too, the assertions against the Vice President regarding her alleged ownership of purported undisclosed bank accounts is ridiculously based solely on an online article that was published in 2016,” her answer read.
“This so-called proof is hearsay twice removed and, thus, unreliable,” it added.
Duterte also said that lawmakers’ attempts to secure additional documents — including her SALN and alleged suspicious transactions flagged by the Anti-Money Laundering Council — show that the complainants lack sufficient evidence.
House lawmakers, however, said part of the impeachment proceedings include reviewing additional evidence before rendering a decision that there is probable cause to impeach Duterte.
“All told, there is nothing in the impeachment complaints that demonstrate any ultimate facts pointing to coherent, credible account or narration of any impeachable conduct,” the vice president argued.
The House justice committee will resume impeachment hearings on March 18. Complainants may also file their reply to Duterte’s answer ad cautelam.
