House prosecution files manifestation, says VP Sara’s ‘non-answer’ requires no further reply

THE 11-member House prosecution panel on Monday chose to file a manifestation rather than a reply to Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s answer to the articles of impeachment, arguing that her submission raises no factual issues that warrant a substantive response.

House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil submitted the manifestation to the Senate, which was received by Senate Secretary General Renato Bantug Jr. at 11:15 a.m. on Monday.

Copies were likewise furnished to the Office of the Vice President and the law firm Fortun Narvasa & Salazar.

In the 5-page filing, the prosecution explained that the vice president resorted anew to raising procedural, jurisdictional, and constitutional objections before the Senate impeachment court instead of factual narratives supporting her general denial of the allegations.

“Under the applicable rules, the allegations and defenses in the Answer are deemed controverted even without a Reply,” the manifestation read.

“More fundamentally, the Answer raises no material factual issue that requires a responsive pleading. It does not meaningfully engage the factual allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, but instead concentrates on procedural, jurisdictional, and constitutional objections directed against the continuation of the proceedings,” it added.

Duterte faces four articles of impeachment involving the alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds, bribery, unexplained wealth, and grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcod, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez.

The prosecution noted that her answer failed to directly address any of these allegations or explain why she should not be held liable for the impeachable offenses charged against her.

“This is evident across all four Articles, where the respondent repeatedly asserts that she committed no impeachable offense,” the manifestation read.

“Yes beyond these general denials, the Answer offers no coherent factual narrative that directly refutes the charges set forth in the Articles of Impeachment,” it added.

For each article of impeachment, the prosecution observed that Duterte failed to present her own version of events or provide any accounting of the transactions in question, including the alleged non-disclosure of cash on hand in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).

Considering the substantial lack of counterevidence in her answer, the House prosecutors said the vice president appears to be seeking the dismissal of the case before the Senate impeachment court can even hear the evidence.

“In substance, therefore, the Answer does not function as a genuine response to the charges, but as an attempt to secure the outright dismissal of the impeachment case on threshold constitutional and procedural grounds,” the manifestation read.

The prosecution, however, argued that no provision in the Constitution or the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials authorizes the outright dismissal of an impeachment case before trial.

According to the prosecutors, the only recognized basis for terminating an impeachment proceeding is an acquittal rendered by the impeachment court after a full hearing of the evidence.

The prosecution likewise maintained that the Senate should not pass upon Duterte’s jurisdictional and constitutional challenges against the House proceedings, noting that these are already pending before the Supreme Court.

“To the extent that these matters have been elevated for judicial determination, the Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, cannot be placed in the position of reviewing or pre-empting issues currently pending before the Supreme Court,” the manifestation read.

Apart from the petition, the House prosecutors also asserted that the Senate should not pass judgment on the House’s impeachment proceedings, as the Constitution vests the exclusive power to initiate such proceedings in the House, including the authority to enforce its own rules.

“At the same time, these objections go into the very core of the House’s exclusive power to initiate impeachment proceedings. This power cannot be subjected to review, revision, or nullification by the Senate acting as an Impeachment Court, without effectively disturbing the constitutional allocation of powers between the two Houses of Congress,” it added.

Concluding its manifestation, the prosecution panel urged the Senate impeachment court to proceed with the trial, saying that further pleadings and paper submissions would only serve to delay what the Constitution requires to be conducted “forthwith.”

The Senate, however, has yet to resolve its internal leadership dispute before commencing the trial, which initial reports say could take place in July