VICE President Sara Z. Duterte’s camp cannot credibly claim it was denied an opportunity to respond to allegations repeatedly raised since the 2024 congressional investigation into confidential funds, according to a House prosecutor.
House prosecutor and Manila Rep. Joel Chua rejected the defense claim that withdrawing impeachment articles after prosecution evidence had already been presented left Duterte unable to formally clear her name on those accusations before the Senate impeachment court.
“Alam po ninyo, hindi po totoo ‘yung sinasabi nung kabila, na dahil po dito ay hindi na naman mabibigyan ng pagkakataon na masagot, o pagkatapos daw siraan ‘yung pangalan ng bise presidente, hindi siya bibigyan ng pagkakataon na sumagot,” Chua stressed.
Questions surrounding the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education confidential funds were first subjected to extensive House scrutiny in 2024, including issues involving acknowledgment receipts, disbursing officers and the identities of supposed fund recipients.
Chua maintained that Duterte’s camp responded to the succession of congressional and impeachment proceedings primarily through procedural and constitutional challenges rather than answering what prosecutors regard as the core factual allegations.
“So ito po ay nagsimula sa committee hearing, walang sagot, nag-submit ng impeachment nung 19th Congress, hindi nila sinagot yung substance, bagkus nag-rely sila sa technicality,” Chua argued.
The first impeachment effort was ultimately struck down following litigation over constitutional restrictions on successive impeachment proceedings, after which a new impeachment case was initiated in the current Congress.
“Ngayon, nag-file kami ng pangalawang impeachment, na kung saan, ‘yun pa rin naman ang isyu, pero again, sa kanilang mga answer, wala pa rin naman silang sagot na maayos, at hindi pa rin nila sinagot, bagkus tumakbo na naman po sila sa Korte Suprema,” Chua maintained.
Duterte and her lawyers have consistently disputed the validity of the impeachment efforts and denied wrongdoing, while also challenging various prosecution claims and evidence during cross-examination.
Chua nevertheless argued that the pattern shows an effort to defeat or delay proceedings without squarely addressing what prosecutors consider the underlying factual issues.
“So sa totoo lang, from the very beginning, wala naman talaga silang intensyon na sagutin ito ng maayos. Ang gusto lamang nila, it’s either ipa-dismiss ito o i-delay,” Chua claimed.
With the other articles withdrawn, Duterte’s defense will be confined to Article II on alleged unexplained wealth
metrosundaily
