MAMAMAYANG Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima on Wednesday said complainants in one of the impeachment cases against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte have waived their right to file a reply, saying the consolidated verified answer “failed to controvert the material allegations” raised in the complaint.
Speaking before the House Committee on Justice, De Lima, endorser of the Saballa et al. complaint, said the move came after a “careful study” of the vice president’s submission.
De Lima stressed that the complainants—whose position she shares—found that the response did not directly address the accusations.
The same did not controvert the material allegations in the complaint. The consolidated verified answer does not specifically address the allegations raised in the complaint,” De Lima said.
De Lima also took issue with the arguments raised in the answer, noting that it revisited matters already settled by the panel.
“We also note that the answer continues to focus on the issue of sufficiency in substance, even though that very issue has already been settled by the positive declaration of an overwhelming majority of this committee,” she said.
According to De Lima, the response further showed “a confusion between ultimate facts and evidentiary facts,” and did not offer a substantive counter-version of events.
“Since the answer does not specifically traverse the material allegations or provide a substantive counter-version of the facts, the complainants have no need to respond,” she said, explaining the waiver.
Six grounds cited
De Lima then laid out the six grounds cited in the complaint, which she said form the basis of the committee’s current deliberations on the sufficiency of grounds.
She said these include allegations that Vice President Duterte committed “culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust” through:
• The alleged misuse of at least P500 million in confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President for 2022 and 2023;
• The alleged misuse of at least P112.5 million in confidential funds of the Department of Education in 2023;
• Alleged bribery and corruption involving Department of Education officials;
• Alleged involvement in a plot to “murder or assassinate the President, the First Lady and the former Speaker of the House”;
• Alleged unexplained wealth and failure to fully disclose assets in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN); and
• The allegations also included acts of “political destabilization” that could be equated to sedition and insurrection.
De Lima stated, “We have already addressed these grounds to determine the complaint’s sufficiency in substance.”
De Lima maintained that the vice president’s submission did not squarely address specific accusations, including alleged threats, fund disbursements and documentation.
“But was there, in fact, an answer to the material allegations? … tungkol dun sa pagbanta nga sa Pangulo at iba pang opisyal… tungkol din sa pag-malverse ng mga pera… anomalous disbursements… wala silang sagot tungkol dun,” she said.
She also cited the absence of responses regarding audit findings and disclosures.
“Wala ding sagot tungkol dun sa mga notices of suspension… notices of disallowance… Nasaan ang sagot tungkol sa non-disclosure sa SALNs ng tamang yaman…? Pero walang sagot,” De Lima said.
Given this, she argued that further scrutiny of the grounds would be unnecessary.
“So it’s really pointless to further scrutinize whether there are indeed sufficient grounds, as this has already been exhaustively discussed in relation to the issue of sufficiency in substance,” she said.
De Lima then urged the committee to proceed with its work on determining whether the complaints should move forward.
