1 week ago
9
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 — Is Vice President Sara Duterte's response to the impeachment allegations truly an answer? For House lawmakers, it's far from one.
In a statement on Tuesday, March 17, Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V described Duterte's 15-page answer ad cautelam as a non-answer, saying she is only "stonewalling" the allegations against her.
"Instead of addressing the charges head-on, she chose to hide behind technicalities," he said. Ortega is one of the endorsers of the fourth impeachment complaint that was declared sufficient in form and substance.
Duterte believes she has no reason to respond to the allegations because, in her and her legal counsel's opinion, the complainants failed to present "ultimate facts" where undeniable and enough evidence of the alleged impeachable offenses had been established.
What the vice president did instead was deny all allegations, calling them "false and misleading."
"The allegations were not answered. The core of the issue is being avoided, and it is being reduced to procedural arguments that do not address the substance of the case," Ortega said in a mix of English and Filipino.
Rep. Joel Chua (Manila, 3rd District), meanwhile, said Duterte merely "sidestepped" allegations by arguing for the impeachment case's dismissal. The answer ad cautelam, however, was supposed to be an opportunity for respondents to answer impeachment allegations "head-on," he added.
"It should not be used to shut down the process before the evidence is even heard," Chua said.
This was exactly what Rep. Gerville "JinkyBitrics" Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District), chair of the justice committee, stressed in her own statement. The vice president's answer looked more like a motion to dismiss instead of a response to the allegations, she said.
"Apparently for me, it doesn’t seem like an answer. While I was reading the answer, it looks like a motion to dismiss," Luistro said, adding that pleading to dismiss the case at this stage is not yet appropriate.
Chua, who was also one of the impeachment prosecutors in the first bid, also pointed out that the justice committee has yet to review the evidence and other documentary materials during the hearing proper of the impeachment proceedings.
Both sides of the impeachment case against Duterte would also be presented during the Senate trial, should the House decide to impeach the vice president.
"Our role is to determine sufficiency. The Senate is where the evidence is tested. Attempts to stop the process at this stage only raise more questions," Chua said, stressing that evading the allegations only weakens institutions holding public officials accountable.
Duterte also submitted a motion to dismiss to the Senate when the articles of impeachment were transmitted to the impeachment court in February 2025.
For Luistro, it is as if Duterte "accepted the allegations" against her when she failed to directly address the impeachable offenses and instead issued a "general denial."
While the justice committee chair respects Duterte's decision to answer the way she did, Luistro believes the vice president wasted her opportunity to respond more appropriately.
"It is a missed opportunity to have addressed all the alleged offenses and grounds, as this is what our fellow Filipinos have long been waiting for — the answers to the allegations against our vice president,” she said.
The justice panel is set to resume hearings on Wednesday, March 18, to clarify procedural matters on the impeachment proceedings before the session adjourns. However, even during recess, the committee seeks to proceed to the hearing proper.
