AKBAYAN Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno on Wednesday put Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), along with the testimony and protection of witness Ramil Madriaga, at the center of the House Committee on Justice hearing proper, arguing that both are necessary if the impeachment process is to test the allegations with real scrutiny.
“Ito ay naaayon mismo sa Section 7 and 8 ng Rules of Impeachment. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit po tayo naghain ng motion para makuha ang kopya ng SALN ng Bise Presidente at para bigyan ng proteksyon ang testigo na si Mr. Ramil Madriaga,” said Diokno in his manifestation during the Justice panel hearing.
Diokno’s focus highlighted a new direction in the House discussions, which had already addressed earlier issues and were now ready to look at evidence and witnesses.
Madriaga, for his part, has figured prominently in the renewed impeachment drive after claiming he had worked under Duterte and had personal knowledge of cash deliveries tied to the handling of confidential funds, allegations Duterte has denied and answered with a perjury complaint.
Diokno framed that approach within what he said is the Constitution’s own design for impeachment, beginning with the House’s role and ending with the Senate.
“Marami pong nagtatanong, ano ba talaga itong impeachment at ano ba ang proseso sa impeachment? Klarong-klaro po sa ating Konstitusyon, Article 11, Section 3, the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment while the Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment,” he said.
“Sa madaling salita, ang Kongreso ang nagsasampa o naghahain ng impeachment case habang ang Senado naman ang nagsisilbing hukom o tagahatol. Kaya tayo nandito sa hearing na ito ay para malaman, dapat nga bang isampa ang impeachment case laban sa Bise Presidente?” Diokno said.
From there, Diokno tied the day’s proceedings to the committee’s earlier rulings, reminding both lawmakers and the public that the complaints had already survived the first constitutional screening.
“Nung nakaraan, nakita po natin na sufficient in form and substance ang dalawang impeachment complaint. Ibig sabihin nito, sapat o tama ang porma ng mga reklamo at may sapat na nilalaman para umusad tayo sa pagdinig na ito. Nakita din ng committee na ang impeachment complaint ay sufficient in grounds o may sapat na batayan,” he said.
“Sa puntong ito, mismo ang Konstitusyon ang nag-uutos sa Committee on Justice na magsagawa ng hearing. Ano naman ang ihi-hearing natin? Siyempre, walang iba kundi ang ebidensya at testigo. Our duty is clear, Madam Chair. This committee must secure and verify every piece of evidence. And we must protect every witness so they may provide their testimony under oath,” he said.
“Ang impeachment case na ito ay dadaan sa butas ng karayom. This is the only way for the truth to come out.”
He closed by looking past the committee room to the full chamber and, beyond that, to a country already watching every step of the case.
“Pagkatapos ng committee, boboto po ang buong Kamara at magpapasya kung dapat ilitis ang kaso sa Senado. At sa bawat hakbang nakatutok ang buong bansa para bantayan ang proseso,” he said.
