Luistro: VP’s reply to impeach raps didn’t answer accusations
Vice President Sara Duterte’s formal reply to the two impeachment complaints filed against her before a House panel “doesn’t seem like an answer” and read more like a “prohibited pleading” or “a motion to dismiss,” according to Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro.
Luistro, who chairs the House committee on justice, shared her initial evaluation on Tuesday after Bicol Saro Rep. Terry Ridon confirmed Duterte’s submission of her consolidated verified answer ad cautelam (as a precaution) to the panel on Monday afternoon.
(The Latin phrase indicates a filing done to answer a complaint in order to avoid default but without formally acknowledging a body’s authority or jurisdiction.)
“For me, it doesn’t seem like an answer. It looks like a motion to dismiss. And it is clear under the House of Representatives’ impeachment rules that a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading in impeachment proceedings,” Luistro said.
“In effect, parang hindi sumagot (they didn’t answer the accusations) and instead they are questioning the proceedings before the justice committee in support of their intention to dismiss the impeachment complaint.”
Duterte’s “lack of response” thus left the allegations against her “unrebutted,” she said.
“[I]t is as if those allegations were accepted, and we will perceive this as a general denial of the allegations in the complaint,” the committee chair added.
Technicalities
For Deputy Speaker and La Union Rep. Paolo Ortega V, Duterte “continues to stonewall the allegations against her.”
“This is not an answer at all. Instead of addressing the charges head-on, she chose to hide behind technicalities,” Ortega, an endorser of the fourth impeachment complaint against the Vice President, said in a statement.
“The root of the issue is being avoided and it is being addressed through procedural arguments that do not respond to the substance of the case,” he added.
Responding to claims by the Vice President’s camp that the Supreme Court had cleared her, Ortega said: “They have to read both the Supreme Court decision and resolution again. The ruling did not junk the 2025 impeachment on substantive grounds, but only on procedural matters.”
“In fact, the Supreme Court itself said that its ruling did not absolve the Vice President. That should be clear to everyone,” he added.
In July 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the then impeachment proceedings against Duterte were unconstitutional, citing violations of due process and the one-year bar rule.
Senate trial necessary
Manila Rep. Joel Chua, who chairs the House committee on good government and public accountability and also sits as a member of the justice committee, said “What we see in [her] Answer is not a direct response to the allegations but an attempt to avoid a full discussion of the evidence.”
“That is not the purpose of an Answer under the impeachment rules. An Answer should meet the allegations head-on. It should not be used to shut down the process before the evidence is even heard. As more information comes to light, including potential witnesses and financial records that may be examined under oath, it becomes even clearer why a full Senate impeachment trial is necessary,” Chua added.
Double standard?
In her reply, Duterte contended that the impeachment complaints against her had been treated differently from those filed against President Marcos.
The accusations against Mr. Marcos were disregarded while the supporting evidence against her was treated as unquestionable truth, thus showing a “double standard” in the House process, she said.
Such unequal treatment, Duterte said, violated the due process provisions of the Constitution.
Luistro denied having any double standard, saying the complaints against Mr. Marcos failed to show that the President personally participated in the allegations raised.
Duterte, on the other hand, was directly implicated in the allegations against her, like in the case arising from the November 2024 online rant where she threatened to kill the President, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then Speaker Martin Romualdez, the lawmaker said.
“Take the case of the threat. Her personal participation is very clear,” Luistro said.
Right to reply waived
Also on Tuesday, the petitioners behind the third impeachment complaint said they would no longer respond to Duterte since she failed to address the issues raised against her.
In a document sent to the justice committee, the group led by Catholic priest Joel Saballa said: “Considering that respondent … 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.”
Lawyer Nathaniel Cabrera, who was behind the fourth impeachment complaint, also said he was waiving his right to reply for the same reason.
Instead of raising any “new factual matter,” the Vice President just issued “general denials, legal conclusions, and procedural objections,” Cabrera said.
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
