House member asks Escudero: Are you afraid of Sara Duterte?
Senate President Francis Escudero and Vice President Sara Duterte (INQUIRER file photos / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA / GRIG C. MONTEGRANDE)
MANILA, Philippines — Akbayan party-list Rep. Percival Cendaña on Tuesday asked Senate President Francis Escudero if he is afraid of Vice President Sara Duterte after the Senate rescheduled the presentation of articles of impeachment from June 2 to June 11.
“Does he fear Vice President Sara Duterte?” Cendana said in Filipino.
“The Senate’s inaction risks being seen as a betrayal of its constitutional mandate and a deliberate attempt to shield the Vice President from accountability,” Cendaña added.
According to Cendaña, the impeachment trial is not some fashion show that can be rescheduled, as convening the impeachment court is mandated by the 1987 Constitution.
“This is not Paris Fashion Week. Convening the Senate as an impeachment court is a solemn constitutional duty, not a seasonal accessory you put on or discard depending on the political weather or one’s personal agenda. It is a uniform of duty worn whenever the Constitution demands it,” Cendaña pointed out.
“The public wants a trial. Even the impeached Vice President herself has signaled a willingness to face one. What’s stopping the Senate? Is the Senate leadership afraid of Sara Duterte? The people demand transparency. Stop the hesitation. It’s time to work,” he added.
Initially, Escudero sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, inviting the prosecution team to present the articles of impeachment before the Senate plenary on June 2.
READ: Presentation of impeachment articles vs Sara Duterte moved to June 11
However, Escudero last Thursday sent another letter to Romualdez stating that the presentation of the articles has been rescheduled to June 11, raising fresh concerns that the Senate has allowed the delay of the impeachment proceedings.
Former senator Leila de Lima said this effectively violates the 1987 Constitution, since Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution states that a verified impeachment complaint “filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House” shall prompt the Senate to initiate a trial immediately.
READ: New delay in Sara Duterte impeachment trial raises concerns
One-third of the House is 102 out of 306, which means this requirement was satisfied after 215 lawmakers signed and filed the fourth impeachment complaint last February 5.
Aside from these, Cendaña said that claims that the impeachment proceedings, once started during the 19th Congress, cannot cross over to the 20th Congress are mere “legal fiction.”
Several senators on Monday debated whether the impeachment trial can cross over to the next Congress, with Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino manifesting before the Senate plenary that the chamber “cannot carry unfinished proceedings into the next Congress.”
But Senate Minority Leader Koko Pimentel and Senator Risa Hontiveros disagreed.
READ: Senators debate impeachment trial crossing into 20th Congress
“The impeachment process is a constitutional mandate, not a legislative bill that expires at the stroke of midnight. Once the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate is constitutionally bound to convene as an impeachment court—no ifs, no buts. The delay, and now the flimsy excuses, only add insult to institutional injury,” Cendaña said.
Last February 5, Duterte was impeached after House lawmakers verified a fourth complaint hinged on alleged misuse of confidential funds (CF) lodged in her offices and threats to high-ranking officials, including President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and House Speaker Romualdez.
The fourth complaint was a combination of the first three impeachment raps filed by groups, incorporating findings from the House committee on good government and public accountability, which spotted irregularities in CF expenditures.
During the hearings, lawmakers discovered odd names signing off acknowledgement receipts (ARs) for the confidential expenses made by Duterte’s offices.
ARs are submitted to the Commission on Audit to prove that funding for projects reached its intended beneficiaries, who, in this case, are confidential informants.
Antipolo City 2nd District Rep. Romeo Acop noticed that one of the individuals who signed the ARs was named Mary Grace Piattos — a name similar to that of a restaurant and a potato chip brand.
Later on, Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong showed two ARs — one for the Office of the Vice President and another for the Department of Education — which were both received by a certain Kokoy Villamin.
However, the signatures and handwriting used by Villamin in the two documents differed.
Both names were also not found inside the Philippine Statistics Authority database.
