THE House Committee on Justice has applied the same standards to the impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, but the key difference, its chair said, is that the allegations against Duterte are supported by evidence of her direct participation.
Batangas Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro, chair of the House Committee on Justice, pushed back against the vice president’s argument that the House had used a double standard, saying that the panel had been consistent from the start.
“Of course, there is a massive disparity between the impeachment against the President and the Vice President. Yung kay Presidente, hindi mo makita ang personal participation. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that will establish ‘yung naging participation ng Presidente in the corruption,” Luistro told
Atty. Lorna Kapunan and Jaime Regalario’s Laban Para sa Karapatan radio program over dwIZ over the weekend.
The corruption did not occur during the budget approval; it occurred during the implementation. So nasaan ang Presidente doon sa implementation? Of course, you cannot question his having approved the General Appropriations Act kasi kapangyarihan niya ‘yun,” Luistro said.
“Since day one, ang naging pronouncement namin and even in all our actions, we applied exactly the same parameter. Kung anong pamantayan ang ginamit namin sa Presidente, ganon din ang pamantayan na ginagamit namin sa Bise Presidente. And even with respect to the entire procedure, it is exactly the same,” Luistro added.
Luistro said the panel looked for personal involvement in the acts alleged in the complaint against the President and did not find enough to support that conclusion.
“The only difference is with respect to the personal participation na ito ang paulit-ulit kong narinig sa mga Justice members. Doon sa impeachment process ng Presidente may allegation diyan ng corruption. May allegation diyan ng, ano ito, dito sa mga pagpasa or pag-approve ng GAA (General Approproations Act), the unprogrammed appropriation. Pero ang hinahanap talaga ng mga Justice members is the personal involvement. The personal participation—what evidence do they have to establish the personal participation?” Luistro said.
Luistro stated that signing the General Appropriations Act alone could not be considered proof of corruption, as the alleged wrongdoing in that complaint supposedly did not occur when the budget was approved.
“Granting na pinirmahan ng Presidente, the GAA, which includes even the unprogrammed appropriation. Hindi naman doon nangyari iyung corruption, ‘di ba? It’s just a process, a ministerial process in passing the budget legislation which is the General Appropriations Act. So nasaan? ‘Yung mismong ebidensya that will show the personal participation of the President in the alleged corruption. Hindi sapat na pumirma siya ng GAA 2025 because that’s part of his duty,” Luistro said.
She sharpened that distinction by saying the alleged corruption in the president’s case was tied to implementation, not approval, and that the complaint failed to bridge that gap.
“Siya iyung nag-a-approve ng mga legislation, appropriation legislation towards coming up with this General Appropriations Act. So bagaman ang naging participation lang niya is ang pagpirma, hindi natin ‘yan pwedeng i-allege na proof of corruption because indeed the corruption did not happen in the approval of the GAA. It happened during the implementation. So kung pinuntahan naman natin ang implementation, nasan doon ang participation ng Presidente?” she said.
On the Vice President, Luistro said the panel sees a very different picture, beginning with the public video in which Duterte was heard making threats against President Marcos, the First Lady and the former Speaker.
“Siguro magandang illustration diyan ‘yung threat. Threat or having contracted an assassin to assassinate the President, the First Lady and the former Speaker. Ibalik natin ang isyu ng personal na partisipasyon. May personal participation ba ang Vice President doon sa allegation of having contracted an assassin as the whole world was able to watch that video?” Luistro said.
For Luistro, that particular allegation does not require an elaborate chain of inference.
“Ito ‘yung sinasabi ng Justice members, res ipsa loquitur. Everything is in the video already. It was the Vice President who is actually uttering the words of threat against these three important personalities and having shared to the whole world na nakontrata siya ng assassin who will do the killing against these three personalities if she dies,” she said.
Duterte’s threat against the President, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez in November 2024 became a national security issue and was widely reported at the time.
If we are going to talk about personal participation, is that video not enough? It was she herself who was uttering those words in the video which was seen by the whole world,” she said.
She then returned to the comparison that now sits at the center of Duterte’s defense.
