THE House Committee on Justice on Wednesday resumed impeachment proceedings against the Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, shifting its focus squarely on her formal reply as lawmakers moved to determine whether the case should proceed.
Panel Chair Atty. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro of Batangas stressed that the panel’s task remains limited at this stage, drawing a clear line between a preliminary determination and an actual trial.
“When the accusations are heavy, the answer must be heavier,” Luistro said during her opening remarks.
“We reiterate that we are not here to decide guilt or innocence. Hindi po ito paglilitis—hindi pa,” Luistro said.
“Ang hustisya ay hindi minamadali—pero hindi rin pinipigilan,” she added.
“Today’s agenda is simple—yet heavy with consequence,” she added, as she framed the proceedings around a single issue: “May sapat bang batayan para ituloy ang proseso?”
“Today is not about judgment. Today is about justification,” Luistro said.
Luistro emphasized that the complaints themselves had already undergone extensive scrutiny, noting that the committee started with four impeachment complaints. One was set aside due to a possible violation of the one-year bar rule and another withdrawn in favor of a consolidated case.
The panel is now dealing with the third and fourth complaints — the Saballa et al. and Cabrera complaints — both of which were earlier found sufficient in form and substance.
“Every allegation was questioned. Every point was challenged. Every argument was tested,” she said, pointing to the “voluminous records—pages upon pages, with annexes, and supporting documents.”
“Hindi lang binasa—ito ay inaral,” Luistro said.
Luistro underscored the gravity of the accusations, which include alleged threats against the president and other officials, unexplained wealth, violations of statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) requirements, bribery, and misuse of confidential funds.
“Because the accusations are not trivial. They are serious. They are weighty. They demand an answer,” she said.
“Kung ganito kabigat ang mga paratang—hindi puwedeng manahimik. Kailangan itong sagutin,” Luistro said.
The vice president, she noted, was given copies of the complaints and the opportunity to respond in accordance with due process.
“She was provided the opportunity to respond. Iyan po ang due process,” Luistro said. “Sa proseso, lahat binibigyan ng pagkakataong magpaliwanag.”
The Vice President submitted a 15-page Answer with five annexes, signed by 16 lawyers.
Luistro said this submission is now the central focus of the committee’s work.
“Not the impeachment complaints—because those have already been reviewed, debated, and tested. Not the allegations—because those have already been examined in detail,” she said.
“Ang reklamo laban sa Bise Presidente—napagdaanan na. Ang sagot ng Bise Presidente—iyan ang bago,” Luistro said.
She stressed that the panel would not revisit settled matters.
Therefore, we are not going back to the beginning today. We do not repeat what has already been done,” Luistro said.
“Ang susuriin natin ngayon ay ang sagot ng Bise Presidente, ang tugon niya sa reklamo,” she said.
At the core of the deliberations, she said, is whether the answer sufficiently addressed the charges and altered the committee’s earlier findings.
“Did the Answer clear the air? Did it refute the allegations? Did it address the seriousness of the charges?” she asked.
Luistro stressed that the committee would look for clear and direct responses, not generalities.
“So we focus. On the Answer. On its clarity. On its sufficiency. At higit sa lahat, kung ito ba ay diretsong sumagot sa mga paratang,” Luistro said. “Not evasion. Not generalities. Kundi malinaw at direktang pagsagot sa bawat alegasyon.”
She said the panel would ultimately return to the same threshold question — whether sufficient grounds remain to move forward.
“Now that the Answer is before us—do we still have sufficient grounds to proceed?” Luistro said.
“Did the Answer overturn our earlier finding of sufficiency in form and substance? Did it change anything? Did it weaken the case?” Luistro asked.
“Because if there is—then we move forward. If there is none—then we do not,” Luistro explained.
Luistro closed by urging the committee to remain guided by the law and the clarity of its mandate.
“Dahil sa huli—kung malinaw ang tanong, at malinaw ang batas—dapat malinaw din ang ating paninindigan,” Luistro said.
