2 weeks ago
14
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
Mark Ernest Villeza - The Philippine Star
March 18, 2026 | 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines — Following Vice President Sara Duterte’s “non-answer” to the impeachment complaints against her and the complainants’ waiver of their right to reply, the House committee on justice is looking to begin the hearing proper on March 25.
According to panel chair Gerville Luistro, Duterte’s response failed to directly address key accusations.
“The allegations in the complaint stand because they were never rebutted in the answer of the respondent,” the Batangas 2nd district Representative told “Storycon” on One News yesterday.
She noted that the response centered on alleged violations of due process and questioned the House panel’s determination of the complaint’s sufficiency.
“What we saw were questions on the legality and constitutionality of the proceedings. For me, it is more of a motion to dismiss rather than an answer,” she said.
The lawmaker added that challenges to the committee’s actions may still be raised before the Supreme Court, but stressed that proceedings would continue unless a restraining order is issued.
Complainants in the third and fourth impeachment cases filed against Duterte will no longer file an answer to her 15-page consolidated verified answer because it was a “non-answer.”
In a Manifestation of Waiver to File a Reply filed before the House justice panel, lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan, representing the complainants led by Rev. Fr. Joel Saballa, said Duterte’s reply failed to meet even the most basic requirements of a responsive pleading.
“Considering that respondent’s 15-page Consolidated Verified Answer conspicuously failed to specifically deny each and every material allegation in the 98-page impeachment complaint, complainants deem it unnecessary to file a reply thereto,” Ligutan said in their pleading.
Lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera, who is behind the fourth impeachment complaint, also waived his right to reply.
Luistro said the impeachment complaints are now considered submitted for determination of sufficient grounds.
She said the committee would also discuss preliminary matters, including possible motions to subpoena bank records and requests related to custody issues, before formally proceeding with hearings.
“We want to address these at the onset so that when we start the hearing proper on March 25, we can immediately proceed to the presentation of witnesses and evidence,” Luistro said.
The lawmaker said the timeline of the proceedings would depend on the evidence to be presented and the number of witnesses to be called.
“After March 25, we will be able to assess how many hearings are needed,” she said.
Luistro acknowledged logistical challenges as Congress is set to go on recess, but said the panel would continue its work.
Meanwhile, Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua said the public deserves clear answers, not procedural maneuvers.
“The Filipino people deserve the truth. What we see in the Verified Answer is not a direct response to the allegations, but an attempt to avoid a full discussion of the evidence,” he said.
Double standard?
According to Michael Poa, one of Duterte’s lawyers, the House justice panel seemingly used different criteria for evaluating the impeachment complaints against the Vice President compared to that of the President.
“What we are saying is that in our view, there was a different standard or double standard in the review of sufficiency in form and substance when it comes to the impeachment complaints filed against our President, if you compare it to the review of the impeachment complaints filed against the Vice President,” Poa told radio dzMM.
In dismissing the two impeachment complaints against Marcos for being insufficient in substance, Luistro said the accusations did not establish any factual nexus between the President and an impeachable offense and merely presented policy disagreements and generalized accusations.
Meanwhile, she noted that in the complaint against the Vice President, personal participation was clearly established.
“On the VP, take the case of threat (against President Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos and former speaker Martin Romualdez). The personal participation is very clear,” Luistro said.
The justice panel chair denied Poa’s allegation of double standards: “I don’t think so.”— Jose Rodel Clapano, Bella Cariaso
