HOUSE JUSTICE PANEL FINDS 2 IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTS VS VP SARA SUFFICIENT IN EVIDENCE

THE House Committee on Justice on Wednesday found the two remaining impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte sufficient in substance, allowing the proceedings to move forward under the constitutional impeachment process.

The committee, chaired by Batangas Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro, voted after completing deliberations on the third and fourth verified complaints and determining that both contain a recital of facts which, if proven true, could constitute impeachable offenses.

Both complaints were approved by an identical vote of 54 in favor, one against and zero abstentions, formally declaring the third and fourth impeachment complaints sufficient in substance.

The vote followed the committee’s earlier decision on Monday declaring the same complaints sufficient in form.

Filed by Fr. Jose Saballa and others and endorsed by ML Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, the third complaint accuses Duterte of misusing confidential funds, submitting questionable liquidation documents, committing corruption during her tenure as Department of Education secretary, and threatening to assassinate President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.

The fourth complaint—filed by lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera and endorsed by Manila Rep. Bienvenido “Benny” Abante Jr. and Deputy Speaker and La Union Rep. Francisco Paolo Ortega V—alleges procurement irregularities; omissions and misdeclarations in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth; unexplained wealth; and command responsibility for the alleged misuse of public funds.

Both complaints invoke impeachable offenses under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, including culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, bribery and other high crimes.

House Deputy Majority Leader and Tingog Party-list Rep. Jude Acidre moved to declare the Saballa et al. complaint sufficient in substance. His motion was seconded, but an objection was raised, prompting the committee to proceed to a formal vote.

San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora, vice chair of the justice panel, moved to declare the Cabrera impeachment complaint sufficient in substance. An objection was likewise raised, prompting another vote by the committee.

Following the voting, the committee approved a motion directing the issuance of notice to the Vice President to file her answer to the two impeachment complaints.

The motion, also introduced by Zamora, requires Duterte to submit her response within a non-extendable period of 10 calendar days from receipt of the notice.

With no objection raised, Luistro granted the motion and ordered the secretariat to issue the notice to the respondent.

Before the voting, Luistro clarified that the panel was determining the sufficiency in substance of each complaint as a whole and not on the basis of the individual grounds cited.

“The rules say we will be determining the sufficiency in substance on the basis of the entire impeachment complaint. What is being determined is the sufficiency in substance of the complaint and not the individual grounds,” Luistro told members.

She explained that the committee went through each ground cited in the complaints only to provide lawmakers with a broader understanding of the allegations before casting their vote.

“We adopted the deliberation that we had in the prior impeachment proceedings—that is, by going over all the grounds, only to give a better and wider perspective to all the justice members to come up with their individual judgment,” Luistro said.

IMPEACH HEARINGS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY NOT ‘FANTASY’ – LUISTRO

THE House Committee on Justice is not a venue for speculation or theatrics but a constitutional forum for accountability, Luistro said.

“This committee is not a forum of fantasy. Hindi ito sinehan. Hindi ito komedya. Ito ay pagdinig sa pananagutan,” the Batangas solon said.

“Let me say this clearly: impeachment is not about premonition. It is not about imagination. It is about constitutional accountability,” she added.