Impeachment case `very much alive’ as court has taken over it – Luistro
If there is any consolation for the House of Representatives’ prosecution team, it is that the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte is very much alive, given that the impeachment court has acquired jurisdiction over it.— File photo from Gerville Luistro/Facebook
MANILA, Philippines — If there is any consolation for the House of Representatives’ prosecution team, it is that the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte is very much alive, given that the impeachment court has acquired jurisdiction over it.
According to Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro, the decision of the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, to send summons to the Vice President signals that it acknowledges the existence of a complaint against Duterte, which then merits a response from her camp.
“Well, first of all, we welcome the impeachment court’s service of summons to the Vice President. Apparently, the jurisdiction over the person of the respondent has been acquired already. She has a period of 10 days to answer, that is non-extendable. And we hope that all issues which are being raised in the impeachment court will be tackled as well,”
‘Yong pag-acquire po ng jurisdiction ng impeachment court sa ating respondent, kay Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte, it only shows na tuloy na tuloy na ang impeachment trial. No one can stop this anymore because jurisdiction has been acquired already by the impeachment court over the person of the respondent,” she added.
(The impeachment court’s move to acquire jurisdiction over our respondent, Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte, only shows that the impeachment trial will push through. No one can stop this anymore because jurisdiction has been acquired already by the impeachment court over the person of the respondent.)
According to Luistro, even the very order of the Senate to remand the articles of impeachment back to the House explicitly stated that the motion does not mean that the complaints have been dismissed.
“What is the status of the articles of impeachment, considering that there are efforts to return? I humbly believe that the case is very much active and alive. Why? No less than the order of the Senate last night stated that the case is not dismissed, not terminated,” she stressed.
“Ibig sabihin buhay na buhay ang kaso pending sa impeachment court (This means the case is very much alive, pending with the impeachment court),” she added.
After the Senate convened as an impeachment court on Tuesday night, the court ordered Duterte to answer the allegations against her within a non-extendible period of 10 days.
“The court therefore having been organized and the Articles of Impeachment having been referred thereto hereby issues there writ of summons to Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte who is directed to file her answer within a non-extendible period of 10 days from the receipt of the summons and the copy of the complaint under Article 7 of the impeachment rules. So ordered,” presiding officer, Senate President Francis Escudero said.
READ: VP Sara Duterte ordered to answer the impeachment case against her
On Tuesday evening, 18 senator-judges voted in favor of the motion introduced by Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano, which sent back the articles of impeachment against the Vice President to the House to ensure that constitutional safeguards and issues of jurisdiction were not violated.
Only five members of the 23-member impeachment court opposed the motion.
READ: Senate votes to send Duterte impeachment back to House
The same motion mentioned that the remanding of the articles does not mean that the cases have been dismissed. Earlier, Luistro said they will seek clarification from the Senate regarding its decision to send back the articles of impeachment before the House accepts them again.
Luistro said the prosecution panel is confused at the Senate’s order, maintaining that the articles of impeachment submitted to the Senate last February 5 were in line with the 1987 Constitution.
She clarified that they are not defying the order, and they are only deferring response or further action until after getting clarification from the Senate.
Different legal luminaries and lawmakers have already called out the Senate for acting on a motion to remand the articles to the House. Human rights lawyer and law school dean Chel Diokno, an incoming House representative, in a separate interview earlier, reminded the Senate that judges are not allowed to make motions during a court setup — and instead are only allowed to receive and respond to them.
Diokno believes a question that may be raised is why the Senate, convened as an impeachment court, acted on the motion.
READ: Diokno to Senate: Judges not allowed to make motions
In a statement on early Wednesday morning, former Sen. and incoming Mamamayang Liberal party-list Rep. Leila de Lima said that the Senate had the chance to let the people’s voices be heard, but it allegedly succumbed to “cowardice.”
Makabayan bloc lawmakers, composed of ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro, Gabriela party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas, and Kabataan party-list Rep. Raoul Manuel, believe the Senate’s move is unconstitutional because no provision in the Constitution allows a return of the impeachment articles.
