House execs assert power to impeach
While they respect the Supreme Court as the “final arbiter of constitutional and legal questions,” Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro reiterated that the power to initiate an impeachment complaint and decide whether it should proceed to a Senate trial rests on the House of Representatives alone.
“This is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and one we are duty-bound to carry out faithfully,” Luistro said, chair of the committee on justice, looking into two impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte.
“We reaffirm our full respect for the Supreme Court … We will abide by any lawful order it may issue. At the same time, the Constitution is equally clear in vesting upon the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment cases,” Luistro said.
“The ongoing proceedings in the House committee on justice are part of this constitutional process. They are designed to determine whether probable cause exists—not to determine guilt, and not to conduct a trial. That function belongs to the Senate,” she added.
Luistro issued the statement after lawyers associated with the Vice President asked the high court to stop the impeachment proceedings.
The lawmaker said she has not seen the petition for certiorari and temporary restraining order the Duterte camp filed on Friday, but stressed that her committee abides by the 1987 Constitution as well as rules on impeachment and due process.
Due process observed
Despite the petition for certiorari and temporary restraining order, Luistro said the committee will continue its work, as the filing of a petition does not compel the panel to stop discussions.
“We also emphasize that the process being undertaken is anchored on due process, consistent with the Constitution, the rules on impeachment and relevant jurisprudence. The proceedings are open, orderly and provide all parties the opportunity to be heard,” she said.
“The filing of a petition, by itself, does not suspend the constitutional functions of a coequal branch. Accordingly, unless and until directed otherwise by the Supreme Court, the House will continue to perform its mandate,” Luistro added.
Strong evidence
Luistro and Manila Rep. Joel Chua earlier said that nothing precludes the panel from issuing subpoenas for documents that may help the House determine probable cause against Duterte.
Chua also said the complaint cannot be called a fishing expedition because they have strong evidence, and Duterte continues to refuse to respond to the charges against her.
“We cannot say that this is a fishing expedition because a fishing expedition happens when there is no evidence and basis for the case. But here, we are only looking for additional evidence , and we cannot say that there’s totally no evidence,” he said.
There were four original complaints, but only two remain under the jurisdiction of the justice committee after the first was set aside because it violated the rule prohibiting the filing of more than one impeachment complaint against an official within one year, while the second was withdrawn by its petitioners.
The complaints cite betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption and other high crimes, specifically the misuse of around P600 million in confidential funds during her tenure as secretary of education and her alleged threats to kill the President and first lady.
Another member of the pro-impeachment bloc, San Juan City Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora, agreed that the justice committee’s hearings are part of a process to determine probable cause, and not yet a trial.
But Zamora also maintained that the complaints are backed by evidence and that they have a solid case to send to the Senate for trial.
“I believe we have the numbers,” Zamora, vice chair of the justice committee, said during a news forum in Quezon City on Saturday. “We need one-third, or around 106 … And I believe we have the numbers.”
