HOUSE lead prosecutor Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro of Batangas reiterated Friday a conviction on just one Article of Impeachment should be enough to remove Vice President Sara Z. Duterte from office and impose perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Luistro, a lawyer and chairperson of the House Committee on Justice, said senator-judges are expected to vote per article after the presentation of evidence on all four articles.
“Actually the voting must happen per article but the way I see it, tatapusin muna ang presentation ng apat na articles and then the Senator judges will be asked to vote individually. For example, the first article is confidential funds, on the first article tatawagin sila isa-isa to vote, on the second article, tapos conviction, just one article, ma-convict lang, that should be enough,” Luistro explained during a dzMM interview.
The House approved the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte in a 257-25-9 vote and transmitted the case to the Senate, which convened as an impeachment court on May 18.
“Kapag naka-16 votes in one article, that should be enough to convict the impeachable official and to impose upon her the penalty of perpetual disqualification,” Luistro stressed.
The impeachment case includes allegations involving confidential funds, bribery, unexplained wealth and threats, allegations Duterte has denied while criticizing the process as political.
Luistro said she is aware of differing views on whether perpetual disqualification requires a separate vote, but her position is that conviction already carries both removal and disqualification.
“Although I understand during the time of SP Tito Sen, naririnig ko siya during interviews, ang sinasabi niya, parang divided ‘yung school of thought about the perpetual disqualification that there should be a separate voting for perpetual disqualification but for me, there should be one voting only kasi kaya ka magpe-perpetual disqualification kasi kinonvict mo na,” Luistro pointed out.
She said the constitutional phrasing supports one vote because the penalty is removal and perpetual disqualification.
“And that is why, that explains the use of the word and, removal and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. So for me, it’s one voting only and it carries already the removal as well as perpetual disqualification,” Luistro maintained.
Luistro said a different issue arises if an impeachable official resigns before the conclusion of trial.
“Ibang scenario ‘yun, pag nag-resign, ahead of the trial, mooted ang removal. Bakit mo pa siya i-remove, nag-resign na nga,” Luistro noted.
She said resignation would no longer require removal from office, but the Senate trial should still proceed because perpetual disqualification remains a live penalty.
“So that’s what we call moot and academic na yung issue ng removal kasi she voluntarily left already the position and that is why I said, even in spite of resignation, the trial should continue because there’s another penalty which must be imposed, which is perpetual disqualification,” Luistro explained.
Luistro’s earlier position that the trial should proceed even if Duterte resigns has also been reported, with the lawmaker stressing the continuing relevance of possible disqualification from public office.
“And that is why the senators need to see the evidence for them to be able to determine if they will be imposing the penalty of perpetual disqualification,” Luistro emphasized.
Luistro also clarified the difference between impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
“By impeached it means you found probable cause to remove and to impose perpetual disqualification. But remember, that power does not fall within the House of Representatives,” Luistro said.
She said the Senate impeachment court alone has the authority to decide conviction or acquittal.
“That power is exclusive to the Senate. Pagkinompare natin ito doon sa ordinary criminal prosecution, pag sinabi mong in-impeach, ibig sabihin ni-resolve na ng piskal may dahilan para tanggalin itong public official na ito,” Luistro explained.
Luistro said the House has already performed its preliminary role and the Senate must now hear the case.
“In our case, we filed it with the Senate, the impeachment court. Now it is the impeachment court to decide whether they will convict or they will acquit,” Luistro added.
